Again, I thank my esteemed opponent for this debate and for his response. >I will now respond to my opponent's rebuttals 1 by 1 (his definition is accepted). >Rebuttal of my value (freedom): Many people have the ability to find jobs legally within the United States as my opponent says. He disregards the quota system, however. As can be seen from . http://www.immigralaw.com... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate. >Rebuttal of my value criterion (equality): My opponent agrees with my value criterion. By doing this in he has forfeited a major point. The entire negative or CON case in this debate is that the illegal immigrants DO NOT deserve the same treatment as the United States, and therefore should not be allowed to immigrate which would happen through border fences. Agreeing with me means that my opponent will undoubtedly contradict himself. >Rebuttal of my first contention (individuals deserve the same chances to get a job): My opponent jumps strait to the conclusion that I think illegal immigrants should not pat taxes. Of course they should! Even though they are not citizens, they are still obligated due to social contract to pay taxes. Though this is not the current United States system, I believe that it should be which is perfectly valid considering the hypotheticality (I am not sure if that is a word. Could be hypotheticalness? ) of this debate. >A valiant attempt by my opponent, but futile. He does some basic math: \"This is over 16 million people (. http://www.thinkandask.com......). Now in 2004 it was also believed that around 20 million illegal aliens were living in the U. S. at the time. Now about 174,000 illegal immigrants were sent home a year in 2004. In 2008 that number has risen to 350,000 people (. http://www.foxnews.com......). So in 2004 we had 16 million unemployed people and 20 million illegal aliens. By some basic math we can deduce that without illegal immigration we would have 4 million extra jobs. \" This is sadly (for him) invalid. In reality, not ALL illegal immigrants actually HAVE jobs. Most illegal immigrants travel in families, and only one works. Therefore, my opponent's math is incorrect. >Rebuttal of my third contention (a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy): My opponent bases his rebuttal here on one site (. http://www.progressiveu.org...). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, \"a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy,\" still stands. >My opponent ends his post with a short list of what he thinks the downfalls are of illegal immigration. If he wants them to mean anything in this debate, he must elaborate and put them all in paragraph form, not as a simple numbered list.","Not allowing illegal immigrants into the United States of America I don't 100% disagree with you either. My opinion is that the best way for the United States to address the issue of illegal immigrants is through reform of the immigration/citizenship process...I don't think a lot of people realize how difficult, costly, and time consuming it is to move to the the US. These issues are things we need to work on. I don't think \" handing out citizenship\" is the best way to describe the reform happening in the U.S. recently. It gives a path to citizenship (so they are allowed to go to college and pay taxes, hooray!) through background checks and lots of hard work, and require the person to have lived in the U.S. for a long time. I argue that this type of legislation allows immigration officials to focus on the people who may actually be dealing drugs. What specifically would you do to reduce illegal immigration?","illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship It should be pretty short. Pro says that these people are just as important as us, however he fails to say why. I will await his explanation in round two. Pro says they should have a clear path of citizenship, yet does not explain exactly what that means. A major flaw in his argument is the statement \"They work in horrible condi(ti)ons for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. \" That makes no since. Lots of Illegals don't pay all the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal. Also, just because someone is legal does not mean they don't have to work in these same environments. I fail to see how this helps Pro. I ask my opponent to elaborate before we go any further. I'd like to see if this debate is worth it before writing an in depth response. Thank you.","Illegal Immigration First off, let me just say that I am not \"pro-illegal immigration\" in the sense that I support people moving here without documentation. Rather, I am for reform that encourages immigration and does not intimidate those who want to better themselves and thier lives. As an Arizonan, I am right at the center of the illegal immigration debate. I have gotten to know some of the people whom have immigrated here both legally and illegally. In my experience, I have found that immigrants of all kinds, not just Mexicans, enrich our society and benefit all involved. They are here to feed their families, not to steal our jobs or to bring crime into our country. I find it ridiculous that people want to make it impossible for people to come here. I mean, if someone is breaking the law by being here illegally, then they deserve to be dealt with accordingly. But it takes so long to gain citizenship now, that they really have no choice. Why not reform the laws to make citizenship more accessible?","Arizona illegal immigration law Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right.","illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Immigrants are just as important as us, or any other person for that matter! They Contribute alot to our society! They work in horrible condions for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. And they do more work than regualar day americans.","The problem of illegal immigration has to be tackled thoroughly Assuming that citizens of a country somehow have a greater right than other to that countries' services simply because they were born there, this point still does not stand. The real situation in Arizona and the Southern US is not that illegal immigrants arrive and suddenly get to experience all the welfare benefits that exist there. They have to accept very low wages in jobs that no-one else wants, can't use banks, any social security service like the police, and can't get any form of health insurance, as all of these require some form of identification. By pointing to the figure of 7.7 million workers, the prop assumes that there would be 7.7 million US workers to replace them. In reality, every one of these workers is valued as cheap labour by the people in the US who employ them. Suddenly getting rid of all of these workers would suddenly mean no workers for these jobs, harming all of the businesses who hire them. If 7.7 million is the real figure, then that's a lot of harm to businesses. Agreed, stopping illegal immigration into the US is important, but suddenly removing all of the immigrants already settled there could result in a lot of harm. Even if these workers did get some benefits payed by the US taxpayer, they are often earning such low wages that they would be barely paying taxes at all, in fact they may be eligible for greater welfare than they already get because they are in such a low income bracket. Regardless, they are working, benefiting their employers and the wider economy and therefore they are making some contribution. It seems that the prop's problem in this point is that the immigrants don't pay taxes. A better solution would be to grant them citizenship so that they are in a position where they can pay taxes. That is the plan which Barack Obama is trying to implement [[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5638358/obama_administration_mulling_amnesty.html?cat=9]], and it is directly contradicted by the policy.","Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Yes. I believe that we should deport illegal immigrants from the United States. For starters, many of the people that move illegal to the United States are unskilled and illiterate. Some illegal immigrants can also be dangerous criminals escaping from their country of origin to the United States. Though the process for gaining citizenship is rigorous, it should be enforced, as it improves the nation as a whole. Due to their lack of skill, many illegal immigrants are poor and cannot take up jobs to support themselves. In response to this, many are forced to go to food kitchens or use food stamps. The increase of food stamps and the food in food kitchens has resulted in the government raising the taxes of legal immigrants (aka. citizens), and families that have been living in and supporting the country for generations. I am not against immigrants moving to the United States, but they must be able to contribute to society. If we allow people to go around breaking the laws that has held this country together for generations, whats stopping people from breaking other laws. We take a firm stance against murder and other crimes, and we must do the same with our laws on immigration. Many of the immigrants are also children and are unable to contribute to America as a whole. These children must be sent back to the country that they came from. You may say that some immigrants are smart, and just don't have any money. Well, in that case they can apply for citizen ship. My own mother moved here (America) when she was 21, with no money. It took her 16 years to get her citizen ship, but it payed off. We cannot allow those who just come here illegally to stay and bring down our society.","Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Illegals take jobs from and lower wages for US citizens","Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic.","should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Possibly 40% came to US legally and are now here illegally for some. http://www.politifact.com... Also opponent has stated i didnt quite answer his question \"\"if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? I answered \"Many of the illegal immigrants that are here in this country did so by legal means example per visa. But those documentations have so expired and are willingly staying in this country illegally and knowingly. So no I do not support them being in this country when there documentations have expired and there now here illegally. To your otger statement of if all of the illegal immigrants were to becone us citizens then they would be able to pay taxes and more revenue for the government. Buf here is the thing majority of the illegal immigrants are below the poverty line. So realistically they would not pay taxes since they don't make enough to pay taxes or if they do pay tax it would be so miniscule that it wouldnt be noticed. Now if you are under the poverty line you wouldn't pay taxes or if you did it would be very small but the government would actually pay you more for refund then you would pay, if you are paying taxes. Depending on how many kids you have, if you have 4 children i think its betwen 10k-12k. Now that they are citizen it is open doors for all newpy us citizen to apply and get all of the welfare programs available to us citizens. This will sky rocket the us debt in order to sustain this level of cost deficiency. As per your statement of being humane. You don't see people giving away all of there assets or money for humane purpose they do what they can but there family comes first. I really dont have to much sympathy for the ones that came here breaking a FEDERAL LAW and ezpevting something back in return. Who i do have sympathy for are the ones trying to do the right thing and come here legally, but now is harder to the that because of the amount of illegals in this coubtry. Same concept us is drowning in debt and society is further crumbling and us is not coming or showing it is trying to climb out of the defecit but bury itself further. Also criminal activities by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are roughly 5% of the US population but cause 25% of crimes in the US. That is a staggering data for such a small portion of the US population. So if all illegal immigrants were deported rape, murder, robbery, and general crimes would drop 25%. http://www.citizensforlaws.org... A issue of amnesty is this will put a golden plate in peoples mindset. Is that i have a chance because of amnesty i can become a US citizen. This news will spread around the world and everyone will have the same idea. Come to the US you will be granted citizenship if your here long enough and it may become not 7-20 million but 20-60 million within a decade. Yes we both agree the system is broken. But putting more control over the borders, more patrol in the coast, and a better way to track the legal immigrants in this with deporting all of the illegal immigrants will be taxing in the beginning but as time progresses it will balance itself out. The defecit with social welfare will fall the schooling cost will fall and put more money into school books upgrades and possible teachers salary. That is what in my opinion a logical step. In other countries this is not an issue illegals found are deported back immediately, of uou have a child in some countries and they are under 7 they are not recognized as that countries citizen and deported back to the parents country (most cases its within the first year or at when the mother gave birth at the hospital to verify citizenship, and they are not given any welfare or help from the government. Since 1. They broke a law coming into the country illegally and technically a fugitive. 2. Not a citizen and only citizens of the country will be given priority. Which is why US is first choice they can get all of those for free. Come to US you can get free food free housing a new life government help.","The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Another argument is that if we don't have strong borders then we are opening ourselves up to overpopulation that would tax all cities. There is also the issue of weak borders allowing terrorists easy access to our country. By allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country we are telling the world that we are an easy target. Come and get us. We won't do anything about it.","Loss of trust in the government The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists.","Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States This is where your whole argument is wrong. If we abolish birthright citizenship we can put a law in place that allows only babies of citizens to become citizens at birth. Also while illegal immigrants come her for opportunity, they can do that but they need to do it in the proper and legal manner. That are protocols and regulations that they need to follow in order for them to become citizens and with this it would cause our country to be more american, rather than many other countries illegal immigrants coming here and immediately becoming citizens because they have a baby. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed because it is outdated. Also when you say that changing the constitution is unjust, you are mistakenly wrong because changes are made all the times. These changes are called Amendments, these Amendments are there to fix mistakes and problems within the constitution. A new Amendment can be made in order to amend the 14th and help to fix the common misinterpretation that we have today. Thus i would like to finish my argument by giving an analogy. Say you are waiting in line at islands of adventure for the hulk, the line is the time average people have to wait and the ride itself is the gaining of citizenship. Now think if someone were to cut you right when you get to the front of the line and they did not have to wait at all. So now in regard to the debate does it seem fair for an illegal person to just be given immediate citizenship over a person who has waited up to 2 years? Do you think that is fair? How would you feel?","Deporting illegal immigrants maintains moral goal of security. The primary purpose of the government is to maintain national security of its people. Deporting illegal immigrants, who potentially pose a security risk to US citizens, is morally consistent with US aims to protect its citizens.","The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. So, you make some valid points. However, what about the children of illegal immigrants that we must educate with our tax dollars. Recently, they wanted to even give them access to our community colleges that are already overloaded. Illegal immigrants are also known to bring such problems as drugs, illegal arm sales and gang activity.","Immigration I disagree with your point about \"If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. \" I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.","Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US So. My opponent on,y responded to two of my sub points so what I'll first do is rebut those attacks and then re affirm my other sub points and contentions. 1:A) he opens by saying potential is a lie. Okay so let's look at this logically, he is doing his own calculations and that's fine if they were anywhere near correct which they are not. However I can still work with his numbers, even if it costs $210 billion that's not on net. So on net it's still the 1.4 trillion dollar number from the COB study I linked in my original round southeast point still stands. My opponent then states that these people do not deserve a path to citizenship? He doesn't say why they don't deserve an earned path to citizenship I can't really respond to that. He said that we would lose these traditions and yet I'm waiting to hear how, and what traditions are going to be lost in the process. My opponent stated in his rebuttal that these people do not want to assimilate in our country, and thus should not be made citizens. We can see that this is actually not true, at all. In fact 92% of the undocumented do want to become US citizens! This shows a want to assimilate and progress our economy. My opponent is probably going to say something along the lines of \"well why aren't they applying for citizenship now?\" Well the main reason is because they are unable to pay the fees in order to become a legalized person while working towards citizenship. A path to citizenship will immensely help them, in fact Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates over 90% will take advantage of a path to citizenship at that point. Since much of my case went unaddressed I will close by simply saying we can simply put all economic benefits aside, we know that the United States government values morality over everything else. Now if people are not citizens they will be deported of caught. Even those who are just legalized can be deported under circumstances, and the threat of deportation, separation of families, human trafficking, and death for 11.7 million undocumented people is something that must be addressed throughout this debate. Thus I strongly urge a Pro ballot in the round. Thank you.","Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio... Governments need to rethink migration policies as a whole and make an attempt to communicate the benefits of immigration to their citizens. There need to be more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally, allowing them to leave and re-enter the country as they wish. This will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country for life, as at present they know they are unlikely to be allowed back in should they ever leave.","U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border I think that the United States government is too harsh on illegal immigrants. Our government says that the immigrants are free-loaders who come into our country, take our jobs, and reap our freedom. They look at the illegal immigrants in a dehumanizing way, saying that they should not have the same benefits that the rest of us have just because they were born south of the border.","Immigration and Amesty It is unfair that immigrants get to stay in the United States because their children were born here. Although their children are technically citizens, illegal immigrants should not be able to stay in the Nation and send their kids to public school paid for by the taxes of citizens. \"Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn't be in U.S. public schools and wouldn't require taxpayer funding. Thus, it's fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents' illegal entry into this country\" (Izumi). A lot of the tax problems in the school system stem from the fact that parents are not paying for their children's' education and rely on citizens to pay for them. The costs for schools to function and to maintain is increasing. Many new schools need to be built and there is no money in the system. \"Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants\" (Izumi). The need for new schools is because there are illegal immigrants coming to the nation and there is not room for them, and there is a shortage of money because these immigrants are not paying money to support the schools that they are sending their children to. Izumi, Lance T. \"Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly.\" Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 18 Aug 2010: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct 2013.","giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship I believe it is the right thing to do Their the hardest working people in america they work long difficult hours doing jobs no one else wants to for very low pay give them citizenship and let them help rebuild america This country was built on immigration For this debate their our three rounds For the con it is up to them to show why it is wrong to not give hard working illegal immigrants citizenship","Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US DO NOT GIVE A REBUTTAL YET. I would love to have a full debate so only accept if you will participate in each rounds. Comments are welcome and much appreciated. This was also Public Forum topic in December. Pro As the inscription on the statue of liberty reads, \"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. \" Because I believe in the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty we must stand in affirmation of today's resolution. Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. I support this stance with the following contentions. 1) A path to citizenship yields many benefits A) Potential for major GDP growth In August of this year the White House released a study reporting that providing a path to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would create a 1.4 trillion dollar GDP boost if the undocumented acquire legal status in a one year period while working towards acquiring citizenship. This is through the undocumented paying federal taxes that they are currently not paying. . http://www.whitehouse.gov... B) Job creation In a separate study done by Robert Lynch, a professor and chairman of the Department of Economics at Washington University, a path to citizenship will lead to the creation of over 200,000 US jobs in the United States annually. We will see these jobs being created because helping these people acquire citizenship will allow them to start up their own businesses. . http://www.americanprogress.org... C) A path to citizenship reduces identity theft According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 75 percent of working-age of the undocumented use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. The study also showed that illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of undocumented in their respective total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado). As this evidence shows, the undocumented, when unable to obtain their unique identity, will resort to taking other peoples identity. 2) Often times the living conditions in the U. S. are much better than immigrants home countries A) Human Rights Seyla Benhabib, Chair of Political Sciences at Yale University, wrote in her book \"The Rights of Others\" that \"if conditions are so bad in a person\"s native country that they become willing to risk their legality in order to survive their right to survival, in moral terms, holds as much weight as a country's right to secure its borders against migrants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as signed into law in 1948 upholds that basic principle, that Benhabib highlights, in Article 14 stating \"All persons have the right to seek asylum in another state. \" Benhabib, \"The Rights of Others\" 2007 B) Providing opportunity for undocumented children Current laws do allow for undocumented children to attend school grades K-12 however most undocumented children do not receive a secondary education unlike their classmates who (75%) go on to attend college. By creating a path to citizenship we are allowing these children, who mind you were brought to this country at a young age, to live to their full potential thus creating future potential business innovations and future jobs. . http://p.washingtontimes.com... 3) A path to citizenship provides solvency to illegal immigration A) A path to citizenship is the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration. Short of removing all border restrictions completely it is impossible to eliminate the presence of all undocumented people from living in our country. However a path to citizenship does offer some temporary solvency while still having long term economic benefits. About 1.3 million undocumented immigrants began their process to a path to citizenship by 1989, just three years after the reform. This is roughly 41% of the undocumented immigrants where living in the United States at the time. . http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... B) The undocumented want citizenship In a survey done by the Pew Hispanic Research center 87% of illegal immigrants said they would like to become US citizens. The overwhelming majority not only shows a want to assimilate but a desire to become part of the country and progress our economy as well. . http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org... It is for these reasons we must stand in affirmation of the resolution resolved and I urge a Pro ballot in today's debate. Thank You.","Birthright citizenship exacerbates dilemmas around illegal immigration. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage.","Immigration Yes, their are some paths for foreigners (aliens), who are here legally, to get citizenship. However illegal immigrants (aliens), DON'T have a path to citizenship, because they are here illegally. If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. If they are already here, they should stay here.","Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all Hillary Clinton said that if she wins the presidency, illegal aliens who are not violent criminals will be given a pathway to citizenship. I believe that giving illegal aliens citizenship, violent or not, will harm United States and diminish its immigration laws. Instead deportation for all illegal aliens (if not all, at least half) should be considered. 1) lannan13 cannot join. Love you bud but I wanna debate this with another user 2) Use citations 3) Follow this structure: ROUND 2: Opening Statements ROUND 3: Rebuttals of Opening Statements ROUND 4: Defense and closing statements","Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Citizenship is great opportunity; grant it to those already here.","This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society. These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.","giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship If the law is morally wrong then their is a right to break it, it was against the law to help a black slave escape. If someone had helped a black slave escape and broke the law in doing so is that person a criminal and should they have bin punished?? America was founded on illegal immigration american immigrants took this land from the aboriginals, so arn't we all criminals, then this country was built on breaking rules and laws, first immigrants to america came in took what they wanted from the aboriginols and shot them If a law is morally wrong then it is ok to break it, their use to be laws no dogs and blacks allowed into white schools white library's white stores, now if a african american during the 20's had entered a white school or library or store would that make the african american criminal hence should of bin punished?? WAS ROSA PARK A CRIMINAL FOR BREAKING THE LAW? I think she was a hero for standing up for black rights in that bus if the law is morally wrong then it is ok to break it I believe not giving good hard working illegal immigrants citizenships is morally wrong and hence it is ok for them to break the law being in the united states, cause many of them are modern day slaves an live like this to feed their family's, let them have citizenships so they can have proper worker rights and can contribute in taxes If their child is fighting for the united states do you still believe the family of the child should be deported? third argument im going to talk about america's immigration system that makes it almost impossible for the poor in third world country's to come to america, being indian american and having the privilidge of going to india and visiting and learning what is required to come to america I will point out why most legal immigrants have far more advantages over illegal immigrants when it comes to getting into the united states legally Common sence question to ask is why do so many of these illegals risk their lives knowing many have died trying to cross the border when they could come here legally?? common sence would say its much better to be patient go through the proper paper work to come legally into the united states and have your equal rights, then risk your life to live like a slave fearing deportation If you say it was right for rosa park to stand up for black rights and she wasn't a criminal for it then you would be a hypocrite to vote against letting illegal immigrants become citizens because they broke the law by crossing the border and living like slaves so they can feed their kids, especially if they have members who are over seas fighting If you see this fight to let illegals get their citizenships are era of the civil rights movement then you vote pro on citizenship if you are against this era's civil rights movement then you would vote for con","Illegal Immigration Is Bad For Americans Why should illegal immigrants be able to even get jobs here in the first place? If you are not an American Citizen, you should not be entitled to the same rights that an American Citizen has. I forget the name of the law, but it goes something like this: If you are not a citizen of America and you are in America, you: A) Are not protected under the law by the constitution or it's amendments since they are reserved for American Citizens. B) You are however, held responsible for any criminal acts that you commit. You say that Illegal Immigrants could be a major contributer to the economy if they became citizens. I agree, somewhat. If they are actively applying for citizenship or else taking a citizenship course, they should be allowed to stay. If they are simply here to either commit crimes or steal American jobs, get the hell out. If they come on a visa, okay, but once it runs out, get the hell out. Wouldn't it make more sense for American Citizens to get those jobs first?","Path to citizenship is about earning citizenship Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Co-Founder and President of Migration Policy Institute (MPI): \"we should ask unauthorized immigrants to earn their new legal status. Unauthorized immigrants could begin the regularization process by registering with immigration officials and then be given, say, three years in which to qualify. The criteria for regularization should be forward-looking, easily proven, and consistent with what we as a society consider important. Steady employment, paying taxes, speaking English capably and having a clean criminal record are a good start. And the process should a pay for itself by collecting a substantial but reasonable fee from the immigrants who are regularized.\"[8] The difficult conditions of this path to citizenship, which gives illegal aliens no advantages over legal aliens, provides no incentive for illegal immigration over legal immigration.","Illegal Immigration In California What in the hell is wrong with our government officials that they are protecting illegal immigrants interests over its own citizens? I'm seriously dumbfounded!?! These people come here illegally and are given rights!?! What makes Mexicans so special that they can come here illegally while all other immigrants coming to the US have to follow the rules? This debate is open to anyone who has intelligent knowledge of the situation. Please no hate. Objective opinions only please.","immigration I am tired your false accusations. I never said about Americans losing jobs. You have a weak argument and you are trying to change the words I say. Also it is unrealistic to say all the illegal immigrants just got up and left in one day. That would never happen, and would be an impossible feat. Also your argument: \"a large amount of illegal immigrant come here and then have children. these children are natural citizens. tell me: would you only deport the parents, leaving the children to be orphans, or would you deport the children too, who never broke any laws, are natural citizens, and who you would be putting them in a state of poverty? this is only one of many examples of the various complexities of a project of this magnitude and impact\" First of all, I don't think that should be a law. I don't think if you are born in the US or any of its territories you should automatically become a US citizen. It should be if one or more of your parents are US citizens you become one. That would eliminate that problem right off the bat. But since that is not the case it should be the parents decision. It should be the parents decision on whether or not they stay or go with them.","giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship This is an interesting resolution; one which I'm sure many Americans have though about at one time or another. When we begin to look at illegal immigration we can see and weight several things; and at the finish we realize this. It is by no means right to give something to those who would steal it. Now my opponent brings up something in his constructive that really frames the debate, that the United States was indeed founded on immigration, and those policies are still things we value today. We still hold true to the idea that any-one of any background can come to this country. Now that includes the citizens who choose to come illegally. If they truly desired a better life for themselves, there are proper means by which they can obtain this better life. That is though naturalization and legal immigration. However every single day, many people simple show grave disrespect for Our country's laws. Instead of looking to the proper means, instead of working hard for their citizenship (as many people do) They steal it for themselves. And while doing so take Jobs, away from those who need them; Cause a drain on social funds that could be used elsewhere; they don't pay taxes but reap the befits of Public education for their children, and the rest of society. They are criminals, just the same as one who would work hard to rob a bank, or steal jewelery. So I conclude with this, why in any scope of the word; by any definition is it ever right to reward those who break the law? it is through this question we conclude that it is wrong to give citizenship to those ho do not deserve it. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.","should all illegal immigrants get amnesty I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.","should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship You stated that \"if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of the illegals coming from Mexico.\" I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that American citizens are required to take additional shots due to the influx of immigrants coming in from Mexico. You also stated that \"plus, all the illegals are taking up the jobs a legal American could have which puts more American citizens into poverty.\" Most economists in America will find this statement utterly ridiculous. The Brooking's Institution's Michael Greenstone, said that, and I quote, \"on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and income of Americans.\" Immigrants (whether they are illegal immigrants or not) increase the job opportunity's for Americans, because they start businesses and hire more workers. Our goal shouldn't be to send back the immigrants, but to welcome them. It's our responsibility to give them more chances to become lawful American citizens. It can take years for close relatives of U.S citizens to obtain Immigrant Visas. This difficult immigration process only encourages people to immigrate illegally. You also state that \"also the illegals don't have to pay taxes.\" That's my point exactly! If illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship, then they will pay taxes! Many illegal or undocumented immigrants actually pay income and sales taxes anyhow. On average an immigrant, regardless of status, will pay 80,000 U.S dollars more in taxes than they use in government services over the course of their lifetime.","Illegal Immigration Illegal immigration can be summed up very simply... it's ILLEGAL! I try to keep an open mind when discussing immigration in general. I looked at your profile and it says that you are from Stone Mountain, Georgia. You wouldn't know first hand the type of effect that illegal immigration has on our economy. You may say that Georgia has tons of illegals, but I've been there and have seen that you're illegal immigrant problem is on a small scale as opposed to being from Texas and especially West Texas where illegal immigrants are seen everyday, everywhere. I completely agree that everyone should have an opportunity to work and to provide for their family. I also would say that it's a privilege to be an American citizen and not a God-given right. You're idea of legalizing illegal immigrants is immature and very selfish. What do you say to those that have followed our laws and our statutes to try to become a U.S. citizen? In some cases it takes years to become a U.S. citizen and for someone to enter our nation illegally and reap the benefits of our nation is wrong. I'm proud for those that work their hardest to become a U.S. citizen. They have to learn our culture, customs, and traditions and because of that they know that the American life is a life of integrity, honor, and value. Illegal immigrants enter into our nation to benefit themselves. I believe that to be a \"true\" American you must contribute something to this nation. That's not what they have on their minds. Illegals do not pay taxes. They freeload off of hardworking Americans. When you turn 16 you might understand this. I'm ready to hear your argument about how they do work that Americans won't do. It's not true.","Illegal Immigration Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country. - Illegal immigration can be summed up very simply... it's ILLEGAL! + So was a black man marrying a white woman, harboring a Japanese person, etc. Something illegal is not something bad all the time. - You wouldn't know first hand the type of effect that illegal immigration has on our economy. You may say that Georgia has tons of illegals, but I've been there and have seen that you're illegal immigrant problem is on a small scale as opposed to being from Texas and especially West Texas where illegal immigrants are seen everyday, everywhere. + Who cares who has more illegals? Georgia has a significant number and if I lived in Australia I would be abke to debate this debate still. - I completely agree that everyone should have an opportunity to work and to provide for their family. I also would say that it's a privilege to be an American citizen and not a God-given right. You're idea of legalizing illegal immigrants is immature and very selfish. + Can you please make arguments iunstead of insults? - What do you say to those that have followed our laws and our statutes to try to become a U.S. citizen? In some cases it takes years to become a U.S. citizen and for someone to enter our nation illegally and reap the benefits of our nation is wrong. I'm proud for those that work their hardest to become a U.S. citizen. They have to learn our culture, customs, and traditions and because of that they know that the American life is a life of integrity, honor, and value. Illegal immigrants enter into our nation to benefit themselves. + We have to think logically. Some things are not fair. And things always modernize. What about the slaves who were not freed? Should we enslave all blacks because the formers had to endure hardship? - I believe that to be a \"true\" American you must contribute something to this nation. + Tell that to the welfare line. - That's not what they have on their minds. + Illegals are typically very hardworking people. - Illegals do not pay taxes. + If we legalise them, they will pay taxes by law. - They freeload off of hardworking Americans. + This is just a rude stereotype and not a fact. Most illegals work very hartd for their families. - When you turn 16 you might understand this. + Im not insulting you. I wish you would grant the same thing to me. - I'm ready to hear your argument about how they do work that Americans won't do. It's not true. + How are illegals not starving? If all illegals dont work and are inelligible for welfare how are they not all dead? PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT AND GET SOME PROOF FOR YOUR STEREOTYPICAL ARGUMENTS IF ILLEGALS ARE LEGALIZED THEY WILL PAY TAXES AND LOWER SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD. ALSO THESE PEOPLE DESERVE TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THEIR KIDS CAN HAVE OPPURTUNITES AND TEY CAN EAT EVERYDAY. THESE ARE HARDWORKING AMERICANS.","America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Republicans are tearing immigrant families apart while claiming to espouse family values. I think that is hypocritical and inhumane.","America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Illegal immigrants have moved into this country illegally. This represents a clear violation of US law. Although the bible may support illegal immigration(which I highly doubt), illegal immigration creates problems for the Federal government, and problems for the American people. Contention One-Social Aspect Illegal immigration causes an increase in prejudice against the Latino community. The American people are very insecure about the amount of jobs accessible. Illegal immigrants taking these jobs will only add weight to white supremacists' case against the Latino community. Racism only diminishes the idea of America as a world leader. Contention Two-Laws: We should not forget that illegal immigrants entered this country illegally. A continual violation of our laws will invite more people to do the same. Terrorists could take advantage of America's disregard for immigrant laws. Contention Three-Fairness Illegal immigrants are treated unfairly in America. They are taxed unfairly, and are abused by the companies they work for. This injustice should not continue. This injustice will continue, because federal law cannot protect illegal immigrants. Instead, the government should make an effort to bring these people in legally.","Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right. Governments are required by their Constitutions to protect their citizens from crime and foreign threats. In so far as illegal immigration threatens citizens, governments are required to respond aggressively. Arizona, who's citizens have been terribly affected by illegal immigration, is required to respond robustly in fighting the problem.","Due process for illegal immigrants Should illegal immigrants be given the right to due process before deportation from the US? No they should not, they are not citizens. US citizens have earned the right to due process or those that are visiting that are here legally.","Effort to regulate our countrys borders These people are just as hardworking as the rest of us, more in some cases. That they should be denied citizenship and entrance to our country IS unfair but they would be willing to pay taxes for the security of citizenship. Sure they come for economic reasons, but the opportunity here allows them to earn the money they need. It is reasonable for these reasons, and it is no less safe than the drug lords who can afford to get here legally.","Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US Undocumented immigrants granted citizenship would contribute immensely to both our economy and culture. According to the Center for American Progress in a report published in May of 2013, the acquisition of citizenship would allow undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more, creating 121,000 new jobs each year and paying an additional $109 billion in taxes. Not only that, according to a report titled \"Immigration and the Economy,\" immigration reform would create a 3.3 percent increase in the Gross Domestic Product in 2023, and a 5.4 percent increase in 2033.","Illegal Immigration To be clear, I am saying that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U. S. and apply for citizenship. The Con position will argue that all immigrants should be deported.","Immigration I believe if there are some pathes for illegal immigrants to get citizenhood, the path will promote more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Actually there are some legitimate paths for foreigners to got citizenhood, and the way to define whether an immigrate is legal or not is to check whether they got citizenhood through these paths. If the government provided another path for the illegal immigrants to get citizenship, how could we define they are legal or illegal? It seems that every illegal immigrats will be potential legal immigrants at that moment.","Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.","Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Hi! I am Lola and I would like to debate that immigration reform should not include a path to citizenship. On to my first contention, illegal immigrants have already broken U.S. Immigration law by crossing the border illegally. Title 8 U.S. Code section 1325 defines crossing illegally as: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact. Why should we extend the right of citizenship in our country to a criminal who has willingly broken the law? On to my second contention, the people who crossed the border illegally should not get the benefits of citizenship. Those who entered legally should get the benefits, or at least the status quote. Those who crossed the border illegally should not be rewarded, or at most, get the status quote. They shouldn't\"t get the benefit of citizenship in the US. While rights and dignity for these individuals should not be restricted, the path to citizenship is unfair to those who are legally entering and rewards the illegal behavior that enabled them to be living in the U.S. in the first place. On to my third contention, providing pathways to citizenship, especially new pathways, encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States and makes it easier for more people who earn citizenship through the new path to sponsor those who do not yet have it. More people in the US also means that there will be higher demands on social services and welfare. These increased demands on public services will fall particularly hard on state governments. Costs associated with criminal activity also strain government budgets (pay access). And since most undocumented immigrants already file tax returns there is not likely to be any significant increase in tax revenue. Any potential gains in economic activity are offset by a number of factors. First, as more workers become available wages tend to decline because there are more potential workers to hire, allowing companies to pay any interested worker less. Illegal immigrants reduce the wages of an American citizen by 1.6%, which was $90 billion in 2005. This is particularly true in the agriculture sector. Second, increased immigration arguably contributes to deflation because consumers cutback spending in fear that they will lose their jobs to immigrants. And if the lower wages argument is true, there will be even more deflation due to less money available to spend. Third, a central premise of the economy arguments is that we need to increase immigration because the US has a shortage of skilled workers, but this shortage is not significant . A new study claims that this is a myth that needs to be demolished. And, if necessary, workers could work in international waters \" or simply be allowed to work in the US without becoming citizens! Conclusion: As a conclusion, immigration reform should NOT include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States because they have already broken the law and shouldn't\"t get the benefit of citizenship for it, there is no justice for those who crossed the border legally, and providing pathways to citizenship encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States. So, please give a con ballot. Thank you. :)","Effort to regulate our countrys borders First of all, if the reason they cannot afford to become citizens is because they cannot take time off of their low paying jobs back from their home country to learn all the things that the citizenship test entails, they must get here quickly in order to get a job before they starve to death. Secondly they cannot become a citizen once here without a high risk of deportation which has serious consequences when they are returned to their home country. Sure there are some who are not willing to get citizenship but a large majority of illegal immigrants would like nothing more than the security against deportation of a citizenship in the United States. Finally, I fail to see how illegal immigrants are any more dangerous than the legal ones. I would say that the legal ones are often more dangerous than the illegals.","illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org","Illegal Immigration Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country.","U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration.","Effort to regulate our countrys borders yeah it would make things easier if become a U.s. citizen but not all immigrants wish to contribute to all that it takes to be a citizen. most illegal immigrants that are in our country come for economic reasons because their country does not have much of an economy or avaliable jobs, if they already face problems economically which is why they come to our country leads in unwilling tax payers that do all the same we do. im not referencing to all. its unfair but it should be harder to get granted citizenship because all that has happened in our country, we cant just let anyone in our country...how is that safe or reasonable?","Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Ok, So now that I have waited for a few hours to get this statement, this is what you give me. This is too easy. First of all, Immigrants could account for the population increase. Therefore, We could have alot of workers to fill in some of the jobs that no one would want to take. So that's a plus. Second of all, the American people are becoming lazy, so if there is a ethnicity race to the jobs, the immigrants might take them or the American's will have to shape up and quit being so lazy. So I still agree with the fact that Immigrants be allowed to have citizenship in America.","Immigration and Amesty Immigrants are not paying the income tax that all American citizens pay from their salaries. According to Jim DeMint, \"An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens\" (1). Illegal immigrants do pay property taxes; there is no way around that, but they are not paying income tax off of the money they make to support their families. Illegal immigrants take more money from the government than they do paying it back. They take advantage of social services for citizens, abuse them, and then create a deficit, which in turn will raise taxes even more for the citizens of the United States. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be unfair the the citizens of the nation. DeMint also expresses \"People the world over are attracted to the United States because we are a nation of laws. Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families\" (1). People in other nations are attracted to the United States because it is a land of laws and opportunity. By abusing this, illegal immigrants are making the lives of citizens more difficult and expensive to live. In order for someone to become a United States citizen, they should enter the country legally, pay taxes, and not be a reason that increases taxes for people already citizens of the nation. DeMint, Jim, and Robert Rector. \"The Burden of Amnesty.\" Washington Post. 07 May 2013: A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Oct 2013.","why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way","America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Immigrants have rights, and the Bible agrees. All you selfishly care about is money. I care about people who have the right toi a better life.","Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship I feel that you are right in a way but, if the immigrants work and abide by the laws and pay their taxes why should they not receive citizenship?","should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, \"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.\" America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.","Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship For my final argument i will focus on your statement \"Immigrants could account for the population increase.\" Yes the overall population increases, that is a known fact, when you have one group combined with another group you get a bigger group. Now ill ask, is that a good thing? for an example i will bring the country of Kenya into the picture. the Kenyan government was lax about the immigration of Ethiopians into the country but now kenya went down on the DTS scale to a 2 from a 3. When the immigrants joined the kenyan population the government had to mine resources at a dizzying rate and built massive cities that we know as \"slums.\" If we keep letting immigrants in the country will falter but at this point nothing but the extreme can be done. If we give these illegals a pathway to citizenship we are just inviting more immigrants into our country creating more of a problem. thank you for this debate but i believe my case is made and there is nothing more to say.","Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. I believe that if an illegal immigrant does not become a legal citizen, then they should not get the rights of citizenship. If an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, instead of \"jumping the border\", than they do deserve the rights that come with citizenship.","Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S. Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.","should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship I think you forgot the topic question. \"Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?\", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that \"illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us.\" Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.","Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.","America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.","America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move."],"string":"[\n \"Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US I extend my cases for the fairness of this debate.\",\n \"Home sweet home The money that these immigrants earn are sent directly to Mexico and the countries they come from where they send to their families. Giving these illegal immigrants citizenship only gives them more rights, opportunities, and money, giving even more of their money to Mexico and the countries they come from. This overburdens the taxpayers and the people that support these citizens which came here illegally in the first place.\",\n \"should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship I'm not against immigration thank you very much. I'm against illegal immigration. illegal immagrants take up jobs that are for us that are legal and thanks to Obama we have less jobs and they are taking them, and i live in Colorado were there are a lot of illegal immigrants here because we are really close to Texas and Arizona, and this is true because i have friends that are illegal immigrants. now i think that immigrants that were brought here illegally when they were small children should be granted citizen ship because they had no choice, because they were children. this is my closing argument.\",\n \"Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Path to citizenship encourages illegal immigration\",\n \"We should keep out illegal immagrants and secure our border I believe that illegal immigrants should be kept out of our country. They hurt our economy and are an overall bad thing for us. I know that they are just trying to get a better life, but what makes them better then the people that are doing the same thing, except that they are waiting in line? The illegal immigrants just cheat and budge ahead of everyone. They don't pay taxes, and they get to be on our welfare system. This overpowers the balance between people who pay taxes, and people who don't. If you have more people not paying takes then people who do, then those people who do, get overwhelmed with supporting those who don't pay. I believe that illegal immigrants are bad for our country and we should try harder to keep them out. The argument for helping them will be all about emotions and feelings, but you cant run the world on emotions. Even if they are trying to find a better life, they need to wait in line, like everyone else, instead of having us literally pay the price.\",\n \"Illegal Immigration In California Our government certainly does not protect illegal immigrants' rights over its own citizens but if you have some examples that would be great. Every human being has innate rights, no matter their immigration status.They get rights because they are human. I assume that my opponent is referring to Sanctuary Cities that basically say to illegal immigrants: As long as you're not harming the society, then we're not going to hound for you and try to arrest/deport all of you. Listen, it's not about being Mexican. Mexicans are not the only people coming into the U.S. illegally. Many people come in on visas and then overstay their visa illegally. We get people from India and Nigeria and China. It's not just Mexico. What it's really about is that a majority of illegal immigrants contribute to society. They actually do pay taxes, they get jobs, and create jobs in their communties. Most of them don't come here just to sell drugs. The belief of sanctuary cities is that it's a waste of time/money to try and catch and deport every illegal immigrant. Most of them aren't harming society so using money to get all of them would require a lot of work and the only return is that we have one less illegal immigrant in the country. Which I would say is kind of a waste. I think that illegal immigrants should be treated on a case-by-case basis. We can't lump them all as bad people who we must get rid of RIGHT NOW. Obviously, the ones harming society must go but we have to realize at the end of the day, these are people. Some of them are families, some of them are breadwinners, some of them are children.\",\n \"give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.\",\n \"Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION . I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship. . II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. REFUTES . I Your source is correct but then adds \\\"Rich Chinese moms\\\" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up. . II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system. . III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs. Citizenship subtext to post . II under Illegal Immigration * Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA * Legal immigration remains the same as current policy CONCLUSION Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border. Source: . http://www.cis.org... . http://www.usillegalaliens.com... . http://www.mnforsustain.org...\",\n \"Birthright citizenship for illegals is bad loophole Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal’s proposal: \\\"Most Americans feel it doesn’t make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen.\\\"[2]\",\n \"\\\"That Arnold Schwarzenegger should be able to become president\\\" As much as I support immigrant rights, I don't think that immigrants should be allowed to become presidents. Only because if an immigrant became president, he/she might have conflicting interests with America and their home country. I'm not saying all immigrants are out to infiltrate the US government, but to ensure that American interests are being preserved, citizens whom have been born and raised in the States would be less bias. Of course, there is always the opportunity to become a representative, governor, or even senator. In these offices, immigrants can still be represented without taking executive control. Again, it's not that immigrants aren't able or would only pass laws benefiting their demographic, but we need a citizen that has been born and raised here in order to ensure that American interests are put first.\",\n \"Immigration Issue Opposition would like to submit 'immigration' as point which cannot be ignored in the present context of the debate as foreign nationals who come without legal work permit and stay in the country and work there, hamoer the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job employment. And then they want voting rights to have a better say in the community! Clearly if we follow the proposition's proposal, the already increasing problem of immigration which has literally plagued the developed and semi-developed countries would then become a full fledged problem. If we grant them a path to citizenship and hence ensuring that right to vote is also guaranteed, following problems are bound to arise: a) it grants amnesty to criminals b) it disrespects all the legal immigrants who are still waiting for a legitimate citizenship c) legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic Therefore giving right to vote whether it be local election or national elections to foreign nationals specially in case of immigrants is disrespect to all the citizens of that particular country who have actually earned their citizenship rather than illegal immigrants who seek a short cut to land of opportunity. By providing them right to vote it will hamper national interest as they will misuse their votes and create a state of political turmoil in the country.\",\n \"Drivers licenses for Illegal immigrants in the US Illegal immigrants in America should be integrated into society\",\n \"Illegal immigration has ruined the US economy The United States should let Illegal Immigrants into its borders. America started as a place for immigrants finding a better life from their own problematic countries, therefore we should admit those people into our country Illegal Immigrants are actually better for our economy than illegal immigrants, to oppose my opponent's argument. There is little evidence that legal immigration is economically preferable to illegal immigration. Illegal Immigrants tend to be more flexile in their job selection, flocking to sectors that need more support. Legal immigrants cannot move easily between other jobs, limiting their benefit to the economy of the United States. Most illegal immigrants are law abiding and pay income tax towards the economy therefore helping the economy benefit. Although Illegal Immigration causes the wages for lowed skills workers to go down, the whole population of the United States is able to benefit because of lower prices on products because of lower wages. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters. On average, all immigrants will pay $80,000 more in taxes per capita than they use in government benefits over their lifetime. Therefore, taking the illegal immigrants out of the United States would cause a large a economic disaster.\",\n \"The US government should cease regulating its borders The United States government should continue to regulate its borders. The borders need to be secure and the country needs to be careful who they let in on a temporary basis. The more agents we have at the border the harder it will be for illegal immigrants to enter the country. Research shows that illegal immigrants find jobs and housing. If the government establishes a database for employers to enter information about their employees it will be harder for the illegal immigrants to find jobs. It will also open up more jobs for the legal citizens. Also if the government cracks down on the employer's that are giving the immigrants jobs by ticketing them, they will be less willing to hire the illegal workers. Presumably the United States government will continue to regulate the borders.\",\n \"Path to citizenship exists: leave and apply legally Dave Gibson. \\\"Despite the lies…A 'path to citizenship' already exists.\\\" March 14th, 2010: \\\"Those politicians and advocacy groups who continue to push for a so-called 'path to citizenship' for illegal aliens, ignore the fact that there is already such a 'path' and it has been successfully taken by millions. Of course, it is not quick, and it does not reward criminals. [it's the legal way].\\\" Dave suggests that illegal immigrants leave and apply like everybody else, through the ordinary path to citizenship.\",\n \"The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. The US should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants due to the drain their presence creates on our economy. Never mind the fact that they are \\\"illegal\\\" and therefore don't belong here.\",\n \"Illegal Immigrants are at the base of almost every major problem in America. First off, thanks for sending me this challenge. This will be interesting... Ok, so your contention is that illegals cause every major problem in America. In order to win, you must do two things: 1) outline every major problem in America and 2) prove how immigrants are responsible. If you don't do that, you don't have a debate. Period. Now, I think I will make a bold statement: It is the legals that cause problems for illegals. It is true that many immigrants have problems with gangs or drugs. But have you ever thought why they are in those kinds of situations? I think that it is the ones already here that force them to live in these conditions. For example, in Arizona, a law was just passed that put up very harsh punishments for hiring illegal immigrants. As a result, thousands, maybe millions, of immigrants have been fired from their jobs. They have no way to support themselves or their families. They now have two choices: move to another state, or resort to crime. I think that we have a moral obligation to create laws that encourage prosperity among immigrants. That way, they get what they want (work/good home) and we get what we want (labor). Yes, at the extremely superficial level, it is the immigrants that commit crimes or join gangs. But it our (for lack of a better term) \\\"fault\\\" that they have to live like that. In other words, if we would be more accepting and more immigrant-friendly, than they would not be forced to join in illicit activity in order to feed their families. Again, I'm not saying that we should just let all the borders open and let anyone who comes in become a citizen. But our laws should encourage immigration, not prohibit it. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With the current legislation, we are denying immigrants their inherent rights.\",\n \"A path to citizenship grants amnesty to criminals. Illegal immigrants are criminals. They have broken US law. Why should they be given any special favors? They should treated like criminals, found, charged, jailed, and deported. It's simply a matter of enforcing the law.\",\n \"For now being born in the US should not make someone a citizen unless 1 of there parents is a citize In the status quo there are over 22 million illegal immigrants in our great country. If half of these immigrants were to produce one child with another illegal immigrant that would mean 11 million more unexpected people in our population. Now i am pretty sure that my opponent will argue that populations naturally balance themselves out but this argument would only be relevant if these were normal circumstances. Our country has never seen an illegal immigration problem like the one we are currently having and this will distrupt the natural flow of population stabilization which can lead to a lack of resources such as jobs and energy. We are a well off country but if this problem is not effectivly solved we will not be in the near future.... challenge me if you dare\",\n \"Path to citizenship forces illegals to pay back taxes. It is possible to reclaim lost tax revenue from illegals by integrating and forcing them to pay back taxes and fines. This is not possible if the US deports them all.\",\n \"Legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic John Fonte, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, in a Sep. 1, 2006 transcript of the hearing before the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary: \\\"If Reid-Kennedy [S 2611] or Pence-Hutchison 'Compromise Plan' becomes law, 11-12 million illegal immigrants will be eligible for U.S. citizenship, while, at the same time, retaining citizenship to their birth nations greatly exacerbating the dual allegiance problem and encouraging the diminution of loyalty to the United States.\\\"[19]\",\n \"People are too hard on illegal immigrants. Before I go into my arguments, let me be clear that anyone who is coming to the US for the simple reason of doing crime are not who I am referring to. I am referring to the people who comer here to 'start over', or to get away from poverty. I don't believe you understood me correctly. I don't need an explanation on WHY they have a hard time finding jobs, I am saying that they SHOULD be hired.There are social media posts that deny immigrants the right to marry here, the right to have a drivers' license, school, etc.I say again, we as Americans are immigrants. Formerly illegal ones at that. We illegally seceded from Britain, which started the American Revolution.What about the organizations who, in the name of the Republican party, complain about the jobs being given to illegal immigrants when, just as your statistics say, most of them are forced to join crime. 37$ of all Americans are not white, meaning that they have come here at some point in history, and I'm sure some illegal.What about blacks? During the time of slavery, blacks illegally entered the north and yet were accepted unless brought before the supreme court. With so many things being accepted in today's society, illegal immigrants should be too. Anyone who is in the situation that many people in Mexico are being born into would want to escape. Therefore, we shouldn't morally be able to shun them from society.\",\n \"Immigration (w/ 5 rounds) There should be no such thing as illegal immigration and those individuals already in the country that are labeled as illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. Immigrants fuel the economy, whether or not they have entered the country legally. By entering the country, immigrants join the low-cost labor pool that increases American money in circulation and government tax revenue (procon.org). Jobs that working-class Americans do not want will be taken by these immigrants, in no way taking jobs from Americans. The main argument of the opposing point of view, that immigrants hurt the American economy, is completely false. Morally, illegal immigration is wrong and without reason. Immigrants generally bring good values to the country, and it is unfair to arrest millions of immigrants due to an opposition that stems from racism (nationalreview.com). As politician Jack Kemp once pointed out, \\\"Americans and immigrants share the same value of work, family, and opportunity. There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today. If anything, they will energize what is best about our country\\\" (nationalreview.com). There is no reason to disallow immigration in this country besides from ideas of Caucasian superiority. Targeting the entire illegal immigrant population in America would fall just short of genocide, targeting and removing a whole body of people from the country. Immigration is the foundation of America and should be made completely legal for all individuals. http://www.tolerance.org...... http://immigration.procon.org......\",\n \"Illegal Immigration The U.S.A. is thought to be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom. Other countries should follow their example. The world should provide equal rights and opportunities to everyone. I believe that the whole world should allow immigrants a chance to apply for citizenship. Sometimes, there is simply no other way for immigrants. This is their only chance to get a better life. Some people like us won the \\\"human lottery\\\". We have everything we need to survive and prosper. Some other people simply lost. They have no way to live well in their current condition. For example, in Mexico, it is very hard to get a job without a college degree because there are so many of those people, and not many jobs. Also, the living conditions are terrible. These type of people have almost no chance to live well in Mexico. You might hear all the stereotypes about very violent people that deserve to be deported, but that is not true. For example,only 1.6% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. commit crimes, which is actually less than the overall U.S. crime rate, which is about 2.8%. Most immigrants are hard-working people who just want a better life for their family. Even if immigrants do commit crimes, then they would be put in jail/prison and then deported. That is how the process works for legal immigrants already. More immigrants will benefit the country, not hurt it. Also, if immigrants have kids in the country, then those kids will have to be split up from their families. No kids should have to undergo that hurt. Illegal immigrants usually are good people trying to get a better life. We should let them.\",\n \"Illegal immigrants in America should be integrated into society - Illegal immigrants that are currently residing in America are active members of American society. They typically lead productive and law-abiding lives consistent with American ideals. Their only illegal action was entering the United States. As such, efforts should be made to integrate them into American society, and providing them the option of obtaining driver's licenses is a good way of achieving this.\",\n \"Border Defence >Again, I thank my esteemed opponent for this debate and for his response. >I will now respond to my opponent's rebuttals 1 by 1 (his definition is accepted). >Rebuttal of my value (freedom): Many people have the ability to find jobs legally within the United States as my opponent says. He disregards the quota system, however. As can be seen from . http://www.immigralaw.com... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate. >Rebuttal of my value criterion (equality): My opponent agrees with my value criterion. By doing this in he has forfeited a major point. The entire negative or CON case in this debate is that the illegal immigrants DO NOT deserve the same treatment as the United States, and therefore should not be allowed to immigrate which would happen through border fences. Agreeing with me means that my opponent will undoubtedly contradict himself. >Rebuttal of my first contention (individuals deserve the same chances to get a job): My opponent jumps strait to the conclusion that I think illegal immigrants should not pat taxes. Of course they should! Even though they are not citizens, they are still obligated due to social contract to pay taxes. Though this is not the current United States system, I believe that it should be which is perfectly valid considering the hypotheticality (I am not sure if that is a word. Could be hypotheticalness? ) of this debate. >A valiant attempt by my opponent, but futile. He does some basic math: \\\"This is over 16 million people (. http://www.thinkandask.com......). Now in 2004 it was also believed that around 20 million illegal aliens were living in the U. S. at the time. Now about 174,000 illegal immigrants were sent home a year in 2004. In 2008 that number has risen to 350,000 people (. http://www.foxnews.com......). So in 2004 we had 16 million unemployed people and 20 million illegal aliens. By some basic math we can deduce that without illegal immigration we would have 4 million extra jobs. \\\" This is sadly (for him) invalid. In reality, not ALL illegal immigrants actually HAVE jobs. Most illegal immigrants travel in families, and only one works. Therefore, my opponent's math is incorrect. >Rebuttal of my third contention (a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy): My opponent bases his rebuttal here on one site (. http://www.progressiveu.org...). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, \\\"a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy,\\\" still stands. >My opponent ends his post with a short list of what he thinks the downfalls are of illegal immigration. If he wants them to mean anything in this debate, he must elaborate and put them all in paragraph form, not as a simple numbered list.\",\n \"Not allowing illegal immigrants into the United States of America I don't 100% disagree with you either. My opinion is that the best way for the United States to address the issue of illegal immigrants is through reform of the immigration/citizenship process...I don't think a lot of people realize how difficult, costly, and time consuming it is to move to the the US. These issues are things we need to work on. I don't think \\\" handing out citizenship\\\" is the best way to describe the reform happening in the U.S. recently. It gives a path to citizenship (so they are allowed to go to college and pay taxes, hooray!) through background checks and lots of hard work, and require the person to have lived in the U.S. for a long time. I argue that this type of legislation allows immigration officials to focus on the people who may actually be dealing drugs. What specifically would you do to reduce illegal immigration?\",\n \"illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship It should be pretty short. Pro says that these people are just as important as us, however he fails to say why. I will await his explanation in round two. Pro says they should have a clear path of citizenship, yet does not explain exactly what that means. A major flaw in his argument is the statement \\\"They work in horrible condi(ti)ons for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. \\\" That makes no since. Lots of Illegals don't pay all the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal. Also, just because someone is legal does not mean they don't have to work in these same environments. I fail to see how this helps Pro. I ask my opponent to elaborate before we go any further. I'd like to see if this debate is worth it before writing an in depth response. Thank you.\",\n \"Illegal Immigration First off, let me just say that I am not \\\"pro-illegal immigration\\\" in the sense that I support people moving here without documentation. Rather, I am for reform that encourages immigration and does not intimidate those who want to better themselves and thier lives. As an Arizonan, I am right at the center of the illegal immigration debate. I have gotten to know some of the people whom have immigrated here both legally and illegally. In my experience, I have found that immigrants of all kinds, not just Mexicans, enrich our society and benefit all involved. They are here to feed their families, not to steal our jobs or to bring crime into our country. I find it ridiculous that people want to make it impossible for people to come here. I mean, if someone is breaking the law by being here illegally, then they deserve to be dealt with accordingly. But it takes so long to gain citizenship now, that they really have no choice. Why not reform the laws to make citizenship more accessible?\",\n \"Arizona illegal immigration law Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right.\",\n \"illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Immigrants are just as important as us, or any other person for that matter! They Contribute alot to our society! They work in horrible condions for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. And they do more work than regualar day americans.\",\n \"The problem of illegal immigration has to be tackled thoroughly Assuming that citizens of a country somehow have a greater right than other to that countries' services simply because they were born there, this point still does not stand. The real situation in Arizona and the Southern US is not that illegal immigrants arrive and suddenly get to experience all the welfare benefits that exist there. They have to accept very low wages in jobs that no-one else wants, can't use banks, any social security service like the police, and can't get any form of health insurance, as all of these require some form of identification. By pointing to the figure of 7.7 million workers, the prop assumes that there would be 7.7 million US workers to replace them. In reality, every one of these workers is valued as cheap labour by the people in the US who employ them. Suddenly getting rid of all of these workers would suddenly mean no workers for these jobs, harming all of the businesses who hire them. If 7.7 million is the real figure, then that's a lot of harm to businesses. Agreed, stopping illegal immigration into the US is important, but suddenly removing all of the immigrants already settled there could result in a lot of harm. Even if these workers did get some benefits payed by the US taxpayer, they are often earning such low wages that they would be barely paying taxes at all, in fact they may be eligible for greater welfare than they already get because they are in such a low income bracket. Regardless, they are working, benefiting their employers and the wider economy and therefore they are making some contribution. It seems that the prop's problem in this point is that the immigrants don't pay taxes. A better solution would be to grant them citizenship so that they are in a position where they can pay taxes. That is the plan which Barack Obama is trying to implement [[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5638358/obama_administration_mulling_amnesty.html?cat=9]], and it is directly contradicted by the policy.\",\n \"Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Yes. I believe that we should deport illegal immigrants from the United States. For starters, many of the people that move illegal to the United States are unskilled and illiterate. Some illegal immigrants can also be dangerous criminals escaping from their country of origin to the United States. Though the process for gaining citizenship is rigorous, it should be enforced, as it improves the nation as a whole. Due to their lack of skill, many illegal immigrants are poor and cannot take up jobs to support themselves. In response to this, many are forced to go to food kitchens or use food stamps. The increase of food stamps and the food in food kitchens has resulted in the government raising the taxes of legal immigrants (aka. citizens), and families that have been living in and supporting the country for generations. I am not against immigrants moving to the United States, but they must be able to contribute to society. If we allow people to go around breaking the laws that has held this country together for generations, whats stopping people from breaking other laws. We take a firm stance against murder and other crimes, and we must do the same with our laws on immigration. Many of the immigrants are also children and are unable to contribute to America as a whole. These children must be sent back to the country that they came from. You may say that some immigrants are smart, and just don't have any money. Well, in that case they can apply for citizen ship. My own mother moved here (America) when she was 21, with no money. It took her 16 years to get her citizen ship, but it payed off. We cannot allow those who just come here illegally to stay and bring down our society.\",\n \"Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Illegals take jobs from and lower wages for US citizens\",\n \"Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic.\",\n \"should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Possibly 40% came to US legally and are now here illegally for some. http://www.politifact.com... Also opponent has stated i didnt quite answer his question \\\"\\\"if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? I answered \\\"Many of the illegal immigrants that are here in this country did so by legal means example per visa. But those documentations have so expired and are willingly staying in this country illegally and knowingly. So no I do not support them being in this country when there documentations have expired and there now here illegally. To your otger statement of if all of the illegal immigrants were to becone us citizens then they would be able to pay taxes and more revenue for the government. Buf here is the thing majority of the illegal immigrants are below the poverty line. So realistically they would not pay taxes since they don't make enough to pay taxes or if they do pay tax it would be so miniscule that it wouldnt be noticed. Now if you are under the poverty line you wouldn't pay taxes or if you did it would be very small but the government would actually pay you more for refund then you would pay, if you are paying taxes. Depending on how many kids you have, if you have 4 children i think its betwen 10k-12k. Now that they are citizen it is open doors for all newpy us citizen to apply and get all of the welfare programs available to us citizens. This will sky rocket the us debt in order to sustain this level of cost deficiency. As per your statement of being humane. You don't see people giving away all of there assets or money for humane purpose they do what they can but there family comes first. I really dont have to much sympathy for the ones that came here breaking a FEDERAL LAW and ezpevting something back in return. Who i do have sympathy for are the ones trying to do the right thing and come here legally, but now is harder to the that because of the amount of illegals in this coubtry. Same concept us is drowning in debt and society is further crumbling and us is not coming or showing it is trying to climb out of the defecit but bury itself further. Also criminal activities by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are roughly 5% of the US population but cause 25% of crimes in the US. That is a staggering data for such a small portion of the US population. So if all illegal immigrants were deported rape, murder, robbery, and general crimes would drop 25%. http://www.citizensforlaws.org... A issue of amnesty is this will put a golden plate in peoples mindset. Is that i have a chance because of amnesty i can become a US citizen. This news will spread around the world and everyone will have the same idea. Come to the US you will be granted citizenship if your here long enough and it may become not 7-20 million but 20-60 million within a decade. Yes we both agree the system is broken. But putting more control over the borders, more patrol in the coast, and a better way to track the legal immigrants in this with deporting all of the illegal immigrants will be taxing in the beginning but as time progresses it will balance itself out. The defecit with social welfare will fall the schooling cost will fall and put more money into school books upgrades and possible teachers salary. That is what in my opinion a logical step. In other countries this is not an issue illegals found are deported back immediately, of uou have a child in some countries and they are under 7 they are not recognized as that countries citizen and deported back to the parents country (most cases its within the first year or at when the mother gave birth at the hospital to verify citizenship, and they are not given any welfare or help from the government. Since 1. They broke a law coming into the country illegally and technically a fugitive. 2. Not a citizen and only citizens of the country will be given priority. Which is why US is first choice they can get all of those for free. Come to US you can get free food free housing a new life government help.\",\n \"The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Another argument is that if we don't have strong borders then we are opening ourselves up to overpopulation that would tax all cities. There is also the issue of weak borders allowing terrorists easy access to our country. By allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country we are telling the world that we are an easy target. Come and get us. We won't do anything about it.\",\n \"Loss of trust in the government The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists.\",\n \"Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States This is where your whole argument is wrong. If we abolish birthright citizenship we can put a law in place that allows only babies of citizens to become citizens at birth. Also while illegal immigrants come her for opportunity, they can do that but they need to do it in the proper and legal manner. That are protocols and regulations that they need to follow in order for them to become citizens and with this it would cause our country to be more american, rather than many other countries illegal immigrants coming here and immediately becoming citizens because they have a baby. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed because it is outdated. Also when you say that changing the constitution is unjust, you are mistakenly wrong because changes are made all the times. These changes are called Amendments, these Amendments are there to fix mistakes and problems within the constitution. A new Amendment can be made in order to amend the 14th and help to fix the common misinterpretation that we have today. Thus i would like to finish my argument by giving an analogy. Say you are waiting in line at islands of adventure for the hulk, the line is the time average people have to wait and the ride itself is the gaining of citizenship. Now think if someone were to cut you right when you get to the front of the line and they did not have to wait at all. So now in regard to the debate does it seem fair for an illegal person to just be given immediate citizenship over a person who has waited up to 2 years? Do you think that is fair? How would you feel?\",\n \"Deporting illegal immigrants maintains moral goal of security. The primary purpose of the government is to maintain national security of its people. Deporting illegal immigrants, who potentially pose a security risk to US citizens, is morally consistent with US aims to protect its citizens.\",\n \"The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. So, you make some valid points. However, what about the children of illegal immigrants that we must educate with our tax dollars. Recently, they wanted to even give them access to our community colleges that are already overloaded. Illegal immigrants are also known to bring such problems as drugs, illegal arm sales and gang activity.\",\n \"Immigration I disagree with your point about \\\"If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. \\\" I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.\",\n \"Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US So. My opponent on,y responded to two of my sub points so what I'll first do is rebut those attacks and then re affirm my other sub points and contentions. 1:A) he opens by saying potential is a lie. Okay so let's look at this logically, he is doing his own calculations and that's fine if they were anywhere near correct which they are not. However I can still work with his numbers, even if it costs $210 billion that's not on net. So on net it's still the 1.4 trillion dollar number from the COB study I linked in my original round southeast point still stands. My opponent then states that these people do not deserve a path to citizenship? He doesn't say why they don't deserve an earned path to citizenship I can't really respond to that. He said that we would lose these traditions and yet I'm waiting to hear how, and what traditions are going to be lost in the process. My opponent stated in his rebuttal that these people do not want to assimilate in our country, and thus should not be made citizens. We can see that this is actually not true, at all. In fact 92% of the undocumented do want to become US citizens! This shows a want to assimilate and progress our economy. My opponent is probably going to say something along the lines of \\\"well why aren't they applying for citizenship now?\\\" Well the main reason is because they are unable to pay the fees in order to become a legalized person while working towards citizenship. A path to citizenship will immensely help them, in fact Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates over 90% will take advantage of a path to citizenship at that point. Since much of my case went unaddressed I will close by simply saying we can simply put all economic benefits aside, we know that the United States government values morality over everything else. Now if people are not citizens they will be deported of caught. Even those who are just legalized can be deported under circumstances, and the threat of deportation, separation of families, human trafficking, and death for 11.7 million undocumented people is something that must be addressed throughout this debate. Thus I strongly urge a Pro ballot in the round. Thank you.\",\n \"Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio... Governments need to rethink migration policies as a whole and make an attempt to communicate the benefits of immigration to their citizens. There need to be more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally, allowing them to leave and re-enter the country as they wish. This will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country for life, as at present they know they are unlikely to be allowed back in should they ever leave.\",\n \"U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border I think that the United States government is too harsh on illegal immigrants. Our government says that the immigrants are free-loaders who come into our country, take our jobs, and reap our freedom. They look at the illegal immigrants in a dehumanizing way, saying that they should not have the same benefits that the rest of us have just because they were born south of the border.\",\n \"Immigration and Amesty It is unfair that immigrants get to stay in the United States because their children were born here. Although their children are technically citizens, illegal immigrants should not be able to stay in the Nation and send their kids to public school paid for by the taxes of citizens. \\\"Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn't be in U.S. public schools and wouldn't require taxpayer funding. Thus, it's fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents' illegal entry into this country\\\" (Izumi). A lot of the tax problems in the school system stem from the fact that parents are not paying for their children's' education and rely on citizens to pay for them. The costs for schools to function and to maintain is increasing. Many new schools need to be built and there is no money in the system. \\\"Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants\\\" (Izumi). The need for new schools is because there are illegal immigrants coming to the nation and there is not room for them, and there is a shortage of money because these immigrants are not paying money to support the schools that they are sending their children to. Izumi, Lance T. \\\"Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly.\\\" Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 18 Aug 2010: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct 2013.\",\n \"giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship I believe it is the right thing to do Their the hardest working people in america they work long difficult hours doing jobs no one else wants to for very low pay give them citizenship and let them help rebuild america This country was built on immigration For this debate their our three rounds For the con it is up to them to show why it is wrong to not give hard working illegal immigrants citizenship\",\n \"Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US DO NOT GIVE A REBUTTAL YET. I would love to have a full debate so only accept if you will participate in each rounds. Comments are welcome and much appreciated. This was also Public Forum topic in December. Pro As the inscription on the statue of liberty reads, \\\"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. \\\" Because I believe in the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty we must stand in affirmation of today's resolution. Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. I support this stance with the following contentions. 1) A path to citizenship yields many benefits A) Potential for major GDP growth In August of this year the White House released a study reporting that providing a path to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would create a 1.4 trillion dollar GDP boost if the undocumented acquire legal status in a one year period while working towards acquiring citizenship. This is through the undocumented paying federal taxes that they are currently not paying. . http://www.whitehouse.gov... B) Job creation In a separate study done by Robert Lynch, a professor and chairman of the Department of Economics at Washington University, a path to citizenship will lead to the creation of over 200,000 US jobs in the United States annually. We will see these jobs being created because helping these people acquire citizenship will allow them to start up their own businesses. . http://www.americanprogress.org... C) A path to citizenship reduces identity theft According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 75 percent of working-age of the undocumented use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. The study also showed that illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of undocumented in their respective total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado). As this evidence shows, the undocumented, when unable to obtain their unique identity, will resort to taking other peoples identity. 2) Often times the living conditions in the U. S. are much better than immigrants home countries A) Human Rights Seyla Benhabib, Chair of Political Sciences at Yale University, wrote in her book \\\"The Rights of Others\\\" that \\\"if conditions are so bad in a person\\\"s native country that they become willing to risk their legality in order to survive their right to survival, in moral terms, holds as much weight as a country's right to secure its borders against migrants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as signed into law in 1948 upholds that basic principle, that Benhabib highlights, in Article 14 stating \\\"All persons have the right to seek asylum in another state. \\\" Benhabib, \\\"The Rights of Others\\\" 2007 B) Providing opportunity for undocumented children Current laws do allow for undocumented children to attend school grades K-12 however most undocumented children do not receive a secondary education unlike their classmates who (75%) go on to attend college. By creating a path to citizenship we are allowing these children, who mind you were brought to this country at a young age, to live to their full potential thus creating future potential business innovations and future jobs. . http://p.washingtontimes.com... 3) A path to citizenship provides solvency to illegal immigration A) A path to citizenship is the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration. Short of removing all border restrictions completely it is impossible to eliminate the presence of all undocumented people from living in our country. However a path to citizenship does offer some temporary solvency while still having long term economic benefits. About 1.3 million undocumented immigrants began their process to a path to citizenship by 1989, just three years after the reform. This is roughly 41% of the undocumented immigrants where living in the United States at the time. . http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... B) The undocumented want citizenship In a survey done by the Pew Hispanic Research center 87% of illegal immigrants said they would like to become US citizens. The overwhelming majority not only shows a want to assimilate but a desire to become part of the country and progress our economy as well. . http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org... It is for these reasons we must stand in affirmation of the resolution resolved and I urge a Pro ballot in today's debate. Thank You.\",\n \"Birthright citizenship exacerbates dilemmas around illegal immigration. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage.\",\n \"Immigration Yes, their are some paths for foreigners (aliens), who are here legally, to get citizenship. However illegal immigrants (aliens), DON'T have a path to citizenship, because they are here illegally. If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. If they are already here, they should stay here.\",\n \"Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all Hillary Clinton said that if she wins the presidency, illegal aliens who are not violent criminals will be given a pathway to citizenship. I believe that giving illegal aliens citizenship, violent or not, will harm United States and diminish its immigration laws. Instead deportation for all illegal aliens (if not all, at least half) should be considered. 1) lannan13 cannot join. Love you bud but I wanna debate this with another user 2) Use citations 3) Follow this structure: ROUND 2: Opening Statements ROUND 3: Rebuttals of Opening Statements ROUND 4: Defense and closing statements\",\n \"Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Citizenship is great opportunity; grant it to those already here.\",\n \"This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society. These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.\",\n \"giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship If the law is morally wrong then their is a right to break it, it was against the law to help a black slave escape. If someone had helped a black slave escape and broke the law in doing so is that person a criminal and should they have bin punished?? America was founded on illegal immigration american immigrants took this land from the aboriginals, so arn't we all criminals, then this country was built on breaking rules and laws, first immigrants to america came in took what they wanted from the aboriginols and shot them If a law is morally wrong then it is ok to break it, their use to be laws no dogs and blacks allowed into white schools white library's white stores, now if a african american during the 20's had entered a white school or library or store would that make the african american criminal hence should of bin punished?? WAS ROSA PARK A CRIMINAL FOR BREAKING THE LAW? I think she was a hero for standing up for black rights in that bus if the law is morally wrong then it is ok to break it I believe not giving good hard working illegal immigrants citizenships is morally wrong and hence it is ok for them to break the law being in the united states, cause many of them are modern day slaves an live like this to feed their family's, let them have citizenships so they can have proper worker rights and can contribute in taxes If their child is fighting for the united states do you still believe the family of the child should be deported? third argument im going to talk about america's immigration system that makes it almost impossible for the poor in third world country's to come to america, being indian american and having the privilidge of going to india and visiting and learning what is required to come to america I will point out why most legal immigrants have far more advantages over illegal immigrants when it comes to getting into the united states legally Common sence question to ask is why do so many of these illegals risk their lives knowing many have died trying to cross the border when they could come here legally?? common sence would say its much better to be patient go through the proper paper work to come legally into the united states and have your equal rights, then risk your life to live like a slave fearing deportation If you say it was right for rosa park to stand up for black rights and she wasn't a criminal for it then you would be a hypocrite to vote against letting illegal immigrants become citizens because they broke the law by crossing the border and living like slaves so they can feed their kids, especially if they have members who are over seas fighting If you see this fight to let illegals get their citizenships are era of the civil rights movement then you vote pro on citizenship if you are against this era's civil rights movement then you would vote for con\",\n \"Illegal Immigration Is Bad For Americans Why should illegal immigrants be able to even get jobs here in the first place? If you are not an American Citizen, you should not be entitled to the same rights that an American Citizen has. I forget the name of the law, but it goes something like this: If you are not a citizen of America and you are in America, you: A) Are not protected under the law by the constitution or it's amendments since they are reserved for American Citizens. B) You are however, held responsible for any criminal acts that you commit. You say that Illegal Immigrants could be a major contributer to the economy if they became citizens. I agree, somewhat. If they are actively applying for citizenship or else taking a citizenship course, they should be allowed to stay. If they are simply here to either commit crimes or steal American jobs, get the hell out. If they come on a visa, okay, but once it runs out, get the hell out. Wouldn't it make more sense for American Citizens to get those jobs first?\",\n \"Path to citizenship is about earning citizenship Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Co-Founder and President of Migration Policy Institute (MPI): \\\"we should ask unauthorized immigrants to earn their new legal status. Unauthorized immigrants could begin the regularization process by registering with immigration officials and then be given, say, three years in which to qualify. The criteria for regularization should be forward-looking, easily proven, and consistent with what we as a society consider important. Steady employment, paying taxes, speaking English capably and having a clean criminal record are a good start. And the process should a pay for itself by collecting a substantial but reasonable fee from the immigrants who are regularized.\\\"[8] The difficult conditions of this path to citizenship, which gives illegal aliens no advantages over legal aliens, provides no incentive for illegal immigration over legal immigration.\",\n \"Illegal Immigration In California What in the hell is wrong with our government officials that they are protecting illegal immigrants interests over its own citizens? I'm seriously dumbfounded!?! These people come here illegally and are given rights!?! What makes Mexicans so special that they can come here illegally while all other immigrants coming to the US have to follow the rules? This debate is open to anyone who has intelligent knowledge of the situation. Please no hate. Objective opinions only please.\",\n \"immigration I am tired your false accusations. I never said about Americans losing jobs. You have a weak argument and you are trying to change the words I say. Also it is unrealistic to say all the illegal immigrants just got up and left in one day. That would never happen, and would be an impossible feat. Also your argument: \\\"a large amount of illegal immigrant come here and then have children. these children are natural citizens. tell me: would you only deport the parents, leaving the children to be orphans, or would you deport the children too, who never broke any laws, are natural citizens, and who you would be putting them in a state of poverty? this is only one of many examples of the various complexities of a project of this magnitude and impact\\\" First of all, I don't think that should be a law. I don't think if you are born in the US or any of its territories you should automatically become a US citizen. It should be if one or more of your parents are US citizens you become one. That would eliminate that problem right off the bat. But since that is not the case it should be the parents decision. It should be the parents decision on whether or not they stay or go with them.\",\n \"giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship This is an interesting resolution; one which I'm sure many Americans have though about at one time or another. When we begin to look at illegal immigration we can see and weight several things; and at the finish we realize this. It is by no means right to give something to those who would steal it. Now my opponent brings up something in his constructive that really frames the debate, that the United States was indeed founded on immigration, and those policies are still things we value today. We still hold true to the idea that any-one of any background can come to this country. Now that includes the citizens who choose to come illegally. If they truly desired a better life for themselves, there are proper means by which they can obtain this better life. That is though naturalization and legal immigration. However every single day, many people simple show grave disrespect for Our country's laws. Instead of looking to the proper means, instead of working hard for their citizenship (as many people do) They steal it for themselves. And while doing so take Jobs, away from those who need them; Cause a drain on social funds that could be used elsewhere; they don't pay taxes but reap the befits of Public education for their children, and the rest of society. They are criminals, just the same as one who would work hard to rob a bank, or steal jewelery. So I conclude with this, why in any scope of the word; by any definition is it ever right to reward those who break the law? it is through this question we conclude that it is wrong to give citizenship to those ho do not deserve it. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.\",\n \"should all illegal immigrants get amnesty I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.\",\n \"should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship You stated that \\\"if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of the illegals coming from Mexico.\\\" I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that American citizens are required to take additional shots due to the influx of immigrants coming in from Mexico. You also stated that \\\"plus, all the illegals are taking up the jobs a legal American could have which puts more American citizens into poverty.\\\" Most economists in America will find this statement utterly ridiculous. The Brooking's Institution's Michael Greenstone, said that, and I quote, \\\"on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and income of Americans.\\\" Immigrants (whether they are illegal immigrants or not) increase the job opportunity's for Americans, because they start businesses and hire more workers. Our goal shouldn't be to send back the immigrants, but to welcome them. It's our responsibility to give them more chances to become lawful American citizens. It can take years for close relatives of U.S citizens to obtain Immigrant Visas. This difficult immigration process only encourages people to immigrate illegally. You also state that \\\"also the illegals don't have to pay taxes.\\\" That's my point exactly! If illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship, then they will pay taxes! Many illegal or undocumented immigrants actually pay income and sales taxes anyhow. On average an immigrant, regardless of status, will pay 80,000 U.S dollars more in taxes than they use in government services over the course of their lifetime.\",\n \"Illegal Immigration Illegal immigration can be summed up very simply... it's ILLEGAL! I try to keep an open mind when discussing immigration in general. I looked at your profile and it says that you are from Stone Mountain, Georgia. You wouldn't know first hand the type of effect that illegal immigration has on our economy. You may say that Georgia has tons of illegals, but I've been there and have seen that you're illegal immigrant problem is on a small scale as opposed to being from Texas and especially West Texas where illegal immigrants are seen everyday, everywhere. I completely agree that everyone should have an opportunity to work and to provide for their family. I also would say that it's a privilege to be an American citizen and not a God-given right. You're idea of legalizing illegal immigrants is immature and very selfish. What do you say to those that have followed our laws and our statutes to try to become a U.S. citizen? In some cases it takes years to become a U.S. citizen and for someone to enter our nation illegally and reap the benefits of our nation is wrong. I'm proud for those that work their hardest to become a U.S. citizen. They have to learn our culture, customs, and traditions and because of that they know that the American life is a life of integrity, honor, and value. Illegal immigrants enter into our nation to benefit themselves. I believe that to be a \\\"true\\\" American you must contribute something to this nation. That's not what they have on their minds. Illegals do not pay taxes. They freeload off of hardworking Americans. When you turn 16 you might understand this. I'm ready to hear your argument about how they do work that Americans won't do. It's not true.\",\n \"Illegal Immigration Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country. - Illegal immigration can be summed up very simply... it's ILLEGAL! + So was a black man marrying a white woman, harboring a Japanese person, etc. Something illegal is not something bad all the time. - You wouldn't know first hand the type of effect that illegal immigration has on our economy. You may say that Georgia has tons of illegals, but I've been there and have seen that you're illegal immigrant problem is on a small scale as opposed to being from Texas and especially West Texas where illegal immigrants are seen everyday, everywhere. + Who cares who has more illegals? Georgia has a significant number and if I lived in Australia I would be abke to debate this debate still. - I completely agree that everyone should have an opportunity to work and to provide for their family. I also would say that it's a privilege to be an American citizen and not a God-given right. You're idea of legalizing illegal immigrants is immature and very selfish. + Can you please make arguments iunstead of insults? - What do you say to those that have followed our laws and our statutes to try to become a U.S. citizen? In some cases it takes years to become a U.S. citizen and for someone to enter our nation illegally and reap the benefits of our nation is wrong. I'm proud for those that work their hardest to become a U.S. citizen. They have to learn our culture, customs, and traditions and because of that they know that the American life is a life of integrity, honor, and value. Illegal immigrants enter into our nation to benefit themselves. + We have to think logically. Some things are not fair. And things always modernize. What about the slaves who were not freed? Should we enslave all blacks because the formers had to endure hardship? - I believe that to be a \\\"true\\\" American you must contribute something to this nation. + Tell that to the welfare line. - That's not what they have on their minds. + Illegals are typically very hardworking people. - Illegals do not pay taxes. + If we legalise them, they will pay taxes by law. - They freeload off of hardworking Americans. + This is just a rude stereotype and not a fact. Most illegals work very hartd for their families. - When you turn 16 you might understand this. + Im not insulting you. I wish you would grant the same thing to me. - I'm ready to hear your argument about how they do work that Americans won't do. It's not true. + How are illegals not starving? If all illegals dont work and are inelligible for welfare how are they not all dead? PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT AND GET SOME PROOF FOR YOUR STEREOTYPICAL ARGUMENTS IF ILLEGALS ARE LEGALIZED THEY WILL PAY TAXES AND LOWER SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD. ALSO THESE PEOPLE DESERVE TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THEIR KIDS CAN HAVE OPPURTUNITES AND TEY CAN EAT EVERYDAY. THESE ARE HARDWORKING AMERICANS.\",\n \"America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Republicans are tearing immigrant families apart while claiming to espouse family values. I think that is hypocritical and inhumane.\",\n \"America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Illegal immigrants have moved into this country illegally. This represents a clear violation of US law. Although the bible may support illegal immigration(which I highly doubt), illegal immigration creates problems for the Federal government, and problems for the American people. Contention One-Social Aspect Illegal immigration causes an increase in prejudice against the Latino community. The American people are very insecure about the amount of jobs accessible. Illegal immigrants taking these jobs will only add weight to white supremacists' case against the Latino community. Racism only diminishes the idea of America as a world leader. Contention Two-Laws: We should not forget that illegal immigrants entered this country illegally. A continual violation of our laws will invite more people to do the same. Terrorists could take advantage of America's disregard for immigrant laws. Contention Three-Fairness Illegal immigrants are treated unfairly in America. They are taxed unfairly, and are abused by the companies they work for. This injustice should not continue. This injustice will continue, because federal law cannot protect illegal immigrants. Instead, the government should make an effort to bring these people in legally.\",\n \"Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right. Governments are required by their Constitutions to protect their citizens from crime and foreign threats. In so far as illegal immigration threatens citizens, governments are required to respond aggressively. Arizona, who's citizens have been terribly affected by illegal immigration, is required to respond robustly in fighting the problem.\",\n \"Due process for illegal immigrants Should illegal immigrants be given the right to due process before deportation from the US? No they should not, they are not citizens. US citizens have earned the right to due process or those that are visiting that are here legally.\",\n \"Effort to regulate our countrys borders These people are just as hardworking as the rest of us, more in some cases. That they should be denied citizenship and entrance to our country IS unfair but they would be willing to pay taxes for the security of citizenship. Sure they come for economic reasons, but the opportunity here allows them to earn the money they need. It is reasonable for these reasons, and it is no less safe than the drug lords who can afford to get here legally.\",\n \"Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US Undocumented immigrants granted citizenship would contribute immensely to both our economy and culture. According to the Center for American Progress in a report published in May of 2013, the acquisition of citizenship would allow undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more, creating 121,000 new jobs each year and paying an additional $109 billion in taxes. Not only that, according to a report titled \\\"Immigration and the Economy,\\\" immigration reform would create a 3.3 percent increase in the Gross Domestic Product in 2023, and a 5.4 percent increase in 2033.\",\n \"Illegal Immigration To be clear, I am saying that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U. S. and apply for citizenship. The Con position will argue that all immigrants should be deported.\",\n \"Immigration I believe if there are some pathes for illegal immigrants to get citizenhood, the path will promote more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Actually there are some legitimate paths for foreigners to got citizenhood, and the way to define whether an immigrate is legal or not is to check whether they got citizenhood through these paths. If the government provided another path for the illegal immigrants to get citizenship, how could we define they are legal or illegal? It seems that every illegal immigrats will be potential legal immigrants at that moment.\",\n \"Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.\",\n \"Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Hi! I am Lola and I would like to debate that immigration reform should not include a path to citizenship. On to my first contention, illegal immigrants have already broken U.S. Immigration law by crossing the border illegally. Title 8 U.S. Code section 1325 defines crossing illegally as: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact. Why should we extend the right of citizenship in our country to a criminal who has willingly broken the law? On to my second contention, the people who crossed the border illegally should not get the benefits of citizenship. Those who entered legally should get the benefits, or at least the status quote. Those who crossed the border illegally should not be rewarded, or at most, get the status quote. They shouldn't\\\"t get the benefit of citizenship in the US. While rights and dignity for these individuals should not be restricted, the path to citizenship is unfair to those who are legally entering and rewards the illegal behavior that enabled them to be living in the U.S. in the first place. On to my third contention, providing pathways to citizenship, especially new pathways, encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States and makes it easier for more people who earn citizenship through the new path to sponsor those who do not yet have it. More people in the US also means that there will be higher demands on social services and welfare. These increased demands on public services will fall particularly hard on state governments. Costs associated with criminal activity also strain government budgets (pay access). And since most undocumented immigrants already file tax returns there is not likely to be any significant increase in tax revenue. Any potential gains in economic activity are offset by a number of factors. First, as more workers become available wages tend to decline because there are more potential workers to hire, allowing companies to pay any interested worker less. Illegal immigrants reduce the wages of an American citizen by 1.6%, which was $90 billion in 2005. This is particularly true in the agriculture sector. Second, increased immigration arguably contributes to deflation because consumers cutback spending in fear that they will lose their jobs to immigrants. And if the lower wages argument is true, there will be even more deflation due to less money available to spend. Third, a central premise of the economy arguments is that we need to increase immigration because the US has a shortage of skilled workers, but this shortage is not significant . A new study claims that this is a myth that needs to be demolished. And, if necessary, workers could work in international waters \\\" or simply be allowed to work in the US without becoming citizens! Conclusion: As a conclusion, immigration reform should NOT include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States because they have already broken the law and shouldn't\\\"t get the benefit of citizenship for it, there is no justice for those who crossed the border legally, and providing pathways to citizenship encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States. So, please give a con ballot. Thank you. :)\",\n \"Effort to regulate our countrys borders First of all, if the reason they cannot afford to become citizens is because they cannot take time off of their low paying jobs back from their home country to learn all the things that the citizenship test entails, they must get here quickly in order to get a job before they starve to death. Secondly they cannot become a citizen once here without a high risk of deportation which has serious consequences when they are returned to their home country. Sure there are some who are not willing to get citizenship but a large majority of illegal immigrants would like nothing more than the security against deportation of a citizenship in the United States. Finally, I fail to see how illegal immigrants are any more dangerous than the legal ones. I would say that the legal ones are often more dangerous than the illegals.\",\n \"illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org\",\n \"Illegal Immigration Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country.\",\n \"U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration.\",\n \"Effort to regulate our countrys borders yeah it would make things easier if become a U.s. citizen but not all immigrants wish to contribute to all that it takes to be a citizen. most illegal immigrants that are in our country come for economic reasons because their country does not have much of an economy or avaliable jobs, if they already face problems economically which is why they come to our country leads in unwilling tax payers that do all the same we do. im not referencing to all. its unfair but it should be harder to get granted citizenship because all that has happened in our country, we cant just let anyone in our country...how is that safe or reasonable?\",\n \"Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Ok, So now that I have waited for a few hours to get this statement, this is what you give me. This is too easy. First of all, Immigrants could account for the population increase. Therefore, We could have alot of workers to fill in some of the jobs that no one would want to take. So that's a plus. Second of all, the American people are becoming lazy, so if there is a ethnicity race to the jobs, the immigrants might take them or the American's will have to shape up and quit being so lazy. So I still agree with the fact that Immigrants be allowed to have citizenship in America.\",\n \"Immigration and Amesty Immigrants are not paying the income tax that all American citizens pay from their salaries. According to Jim DeMint, \\\"An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens\\\" (1). Illegal immigrants do pay property taxes; there is no way around that, but they are not paying income tax off of the money they make to support their families. Illegal immigrants take more money from the government than they do paying it back. They take advantage of social services for citizens, abuse them, and then create a deficit, which in turn will raise taxes even more for the citizens of the United States. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be unfair the the citizens of the nation. DeMint also expresses \\\"People the world over are attracted to the United States because we are a nation of laws. Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families\\\" (1). People in other nations are attracted to the United States because it is a land of laws and opportunity. By abusing this, illegal immigrants are making the lives of citizens more difficult and expensive to live. In order for someone to become a United States citizen, they should enter the country legally, pay taxes, and not be a reason that increases taxes for people already citizens of the nation. DeMint, Jim, and Robert Rector. \\\"The Burden of Amnesty.\\\" Washington Post. 07 May 2013: A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Oct 2013.\",\n \"why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way\",\n \"America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Immigrants have rights, and the Bible agrees. All you selfishly care about is money. I care about people who have the right toi a better life.\",\n \"Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship I feel that you are right in a way but, if the immigrants work and abide by the laws and pay their taxes why should they not receive citizenship?\",\n \"should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, \\\"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.\\\" America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.\",\n \"Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship For my final argument i will focus on your statement \\\"Immigrants could account for the population increase.\\\" Yes the overall population increases, that is a known fact, when you have one group combined with another group you get a bigger group. Now ill ask, is that a good thing? for an example i will bring the country of Kenya into the picture. the Kenyan government was lax about the immigration of Ethiopians into the country but now kenya went down on the DTS scale to a 2 from a 3. When the immigrants joined the kenyan population the government had to mine resources at a dizzying rate and built massive cities that we know as \\\"slums.\\\" If we keep letting immigrants in the country will falter but at this point nothing but the extreme can be done. If we give these illegals a pathway to citizenship we are just inviting more immigrants into our country creating more of a problem. thank you for this debate but i believe my case is made and there is nothing more to say.\",\n \"Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. I believe that if an illegal immigrant does not become a legal citizen, then they should not get the rights of citizenship. If an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, instead of \\\"jumping the border\\\", than they do deserve the rights that come with citizenship.\",\n \"Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S. Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.\",\n \"should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship I think you forgot the topic question. \\\"Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?\\\", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that \\\"illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us.\\\" Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.\",\n \"Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.\",\n \"America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.\",\n \"America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":28,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Gun Control\nWashington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a \"smoking gun\" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion,\" April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987. The study concluded there was a \"prompt decline\" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C. Handgun bans are enforceable Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are \"unenforceable.\" On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S. According to \"The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s\" (2006), the 2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38. What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post. All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable. I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people. States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds. The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period. The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.' The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home. In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a \"smoking gun\" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion,\" April 9, Lexis] Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings. \"And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics,\" Timoney said. \"You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise.\" Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, \"Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention,\" Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, \"Guns and Suicide,\" in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65] Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate. Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., \"Firearms and Family Violence,\" Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., \"Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems,\" Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194. The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., \"Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home,\" Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates rejects the \"quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths.\" Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book \"Private Guns, Public Health\" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide. Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me.","Gun Control\nOkay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, \"assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level\" and \"states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.\" While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.\" A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, \"Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'\" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would \"make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.\" Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, \"The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life\" and \"many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.\" Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: \"every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.\" Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, \"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\" A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would \"give too much power to the government over the people.\" The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, \"if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.\" Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, \"The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!\"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's \"Leading Causes of Death Reports,\" between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, \"Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.\" Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, \"Gun education is the best way to save young lives.\" The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to \"teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life.\" According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that \"children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns\" and \"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence.\" Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.","Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime\nFirst off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry: \"mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. \" I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements. Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry. Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the \"members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system. \" The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating \"there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. \" My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation. My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, \"with correct instruction\". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something. My opponent provides this as evidence. \"Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org...; I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case: \"Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. \" As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%? The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1. \"If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. \" (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used. I will now state my opinion. It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone. My opponent advocates concealed carry. It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry. =Experiment= 20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm. I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat. For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.","CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities\nImminent threatIn round 2, Pro said, \"Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns.\"But then, in the next round he argues \"How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice.\"He's contradicting himself. If educators feel that there isn't an imminent threat, then they're fine to ban guns. That means that students would all be on campus unarmed. If there suddenly WAS an imminent threat, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to go home or to a gun shop in town, arm themselves and come back. Instead, they should just go home period. A college isn't a war zone. Law enforcement professionals should deal with the imminent threat.Low rates of crime on campusPro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. None of those incidents happened on campus and so they are irrelevant to the current topic. For instance, people are far less likely to get caught up in road rage on a college campus than they would be on, say, a highway.Pro's own source acknowledges that there is a far lower rate of crime on college campuses than in the rest of the United States (1). Therefore, it makes no sense to use off campus crime as an example of what could happen on campus.Legal ownersIt's true that it would be perfect if we could ban all guns from college campuses, and Pro is right that sometimes people will still smuggle in guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activity will occur sometimes. Passing legislation that forces universities to allow permit-holders to bring guns onto campus will do nothing to prevent illegal guns either. It will just increase the total number of weapons on campus.Among the examples that Pro cut-and-pasted, there was one where students \"overwhelmed a man and took away his firearm\". That could happen, presumably, to any of the permit-holding gun-weilding students too: they could be overwhelmed and their firearm taken away. SummaryMost college students and staff do not want guns on campus. We know this because in states where colleges can make their own choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even Pro agrees that this is the right thing for them to do when there is no imminent threat, and his own sources agree that campuses have relatively low rates of crime. Pro has given no reason to depart from the status quo.Thank you tajshar2k for this debate. (1) http://concealedcampus.org...;","Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws\nOpen carry deters; most criminals are rational.","Banning guns\nI believe that guns should be banned. You may say that guns are not all harmful and can do good things like hunting. However, Only 4. 2 % hunt and there are many farms that can provide us meat. Also, The shooting test, Written test, Background checks, Mental health screening, And interviews with family members may not help because people could suddenly become different and become assassins. Thank you.","Right-to-Carry\nStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in \"More Guns, Less Crime\", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings: While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. Non discretionary or \"shall-issue\" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men. The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this \"halo\" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area. The increased presence of concealed handguns \"does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns.\" thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member","Right to carry arms\nI, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, \"shall-issue\" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.","We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed\nA. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of \"Guns in America\" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that \"only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.\"7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as \"Saturday Night Specials.\" B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the \"Safest State Award.\"12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 \"crimes\" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, \"Armed Resistance to Crime,\" at 173, 185. 4Kleck and Gertz, \"Armed Resistance to Crime,\" at 185. 5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, \"Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,\" NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org... on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. 7George F. Will, \"Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?,\" Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. 8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, \"Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense,\" The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, \"Armed Resistance to Crime.\" br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., \"More Guns, Less Violent Crime,\" The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,\" University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). 11Lott and Mustard, \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.\" 12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, \"Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003,\" Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com.... Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states. 13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, \"Crime in the United States,\" Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79. 15 John R. Lott, Jr., \"Right to carry would disprove horror stories,\" Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003). 16Gary Kleck, \"Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,\" Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15. 17Compare Kleck, \"Crime Control,\" at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, \"Month to Month Statistics: 1991.\" (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.) 18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140. 19Kleck, \"Crime Control,\" at 13. 20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, \"The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,\" Research I will reply to your stats next round","On Campus Concealed Carry\nNegative Case Contention 1: Concealed weapons permission is unnecessary on campus. Although many point to such incidents as the Virginia Tech shootings to justify the need for concealed weapons, most college campuses are relatively safe compared to other areas in the United States. In 2002, the Justice Department discovered that crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age category as college students, and that 93% of the violence that occurs against students takes place off campus. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...). This means that, as a whole, students are more while they reside on campus than they are in the outside world. This has two impacts. First, it demonstrates that concealed carry laws are absolutely unnecessary on campus because the crime rate is extremely low. Since there is no need to solve a problem that does not exist, concealed carry permits should not be extended to the campus. Second, it actually demonstrates that concealed carry laws have an increase in crime; most college campuses are safe without the concealed carry provision, but the outside world, which permits concealed carry, is not as safe as college campuses are. This means that concealed carry provisions may be the reason that crime is higher in the outside world, so increasing the number of guns on campus could potentially replicate the disaster. Gary Kleck, a gun-carrying advocate, concedes, \"Both gun carrying and gun violence are thus phenomena almost entirely confined to the world outside schools.\" Contention 2: Crime would increase on campus. Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and dangerous than their nonviolent peers. While the college rates for illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental instability is high, studies have shown that individuals who are prone to carrying guns on campus are likely to be more involved in such debauchery than the average student. Two studies of college students discovered, for example, that students with guns more likely to engaged in such risky behaviors as binge drinking, use of crack and cocaine, having DUIs, vandalizing property, and clashing with the police. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...). This means that the students who will actually benefit from the law will be those prone to felonious behavior. Given that most students will not carry guns, and that the students who do possess them will not possess the proper mental faculties to rationally prevent themselves from committing crimes, and that these students are more likely to engage in risky, illegal behavior than the average non-gun carrying college student, crimes on campus will be much easier to commit than they were previously. This means that giving risk-prone students access to weapons could potentially increase violence and other felonies on campus. Since this violates the rights of all, this is a reason to reject the gun laws. Contention 3: Concealed weapons would detract from the educational environment of the school. Given that the mission of colleges is to provide a safe, comfortable environment for a student to obtain an education, and that guns create an aura of fear on campus, permitting concealed weapons on campus would foster mistrust and detract from a student's ability to gain an education. Rather than proving that the campus is safe, the students at a college would attempt to minimize interactions with other students for fear of inciting them to emotional violence. A study conducted to determine the fear of the dissemination of guns discovered that 71% of people would feel threatened by the increase of guns in their community, and that 85% of non-gun owners were opposed to the spread of guns because they felt that it would foster mistrust and lessen their security. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...) This increase in fear would decrease educational freedom by minimizing educational interactions, so concealed weapons should not be permitted on campus. Contention 4: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion and thus foster a greater loss of life. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A shooter enters campus and threatens a student, who proceeds to pull out a weapon of his own to confront the aggressor. Students nearby also begin to arm themselves and enter the ensuing fray because they feel that their friends are in danger (we cannot assume that students will only arm themselves against the shooter.) By the time the police arrives, the officers can never reliably know which student instigated the conflict, which students are actually dangerous, and which students were trying to defend themselves. This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat. However, if only one shooter had been armed, the police could easily identify the individual and arrest him, thus minimizing the likelihood of his escape and decreasing the potential loss of life. So, because concealed weapons are unnecessary and detrimental to safety and security, you should negate. Rebuttals First, he mentions Virginia Tech and Columbine as reasons that guns should be permitted on campus. While these incidents were horrific, the reason that the public knows about them is that they are unique. The media does not cover every day shootings in the poor downtown areas because these are expected to happen, while crimes on campus are often covered because the stories are unique and sensational. This means that although he can provide you with a few specific, well-known incidents, we should prefer my statistics in the first contention that explain that most campuses are safer than other areas of the United States, meaning that while a few incidents do occur, on the whole, concealed weapons are unnecessary. Moreover, you can cross-apply my fourth contention about confusion here, because the incidents would have been magnified if some students had engaged the shooters in a conflict. Finally, this problem does not require guns to solve; more incidents can be prevented by increasing the amount of police security and support for students on campus (directly solves his \"police\" argument.) In his second point, he mentions that some campuses with permits have not had any major incidents. First, this could be explained by the fact that most college students do not wish to own guns, and that they cannot have such permits anyways because they need to be 21, so the prevalence of guns on campus is probably very slim. Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...) For example: Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit. Finally, he claims that only those individuals who could carry weapons elsewhere would be permitted to have weapons on campus. Turn this against him because most students across the nation cannot obtain concealed weapons permits until the age of 21, meaning that the majority of college students could not even defend themselves in the case of a violent felony anyways. Second, this increases the likelihood of felonies as individuals outside of campus with permits would be able to safely roam onto campus with their weapons, meaning that they could easily use them against students. Thus, negate and reject concealed carry permits.","should all guns be banned\nResponse to Harm 1: Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., gun rights activist, stated, \"The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them.\" According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who \"used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence\" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. Response to Harm 2: More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC's \"Leading Causes of Death Reports,\" between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. Response to Harm 3: According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would \"make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.\" Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, \"The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life\" and \"many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.\" Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: \"every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.\" Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, \"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\" A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Response to your plan: There are a couple of problems with your plan. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government, the colonists were running from the British government, fought a war, and made the Constitution of United States of America to protect themselves. The fact that you say that a government could pass a law, moreover make THREATS, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country; a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising if there a second civil war happens in return. Response to Advantage 1: A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, \"assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level\" and \"states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.\" While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.\" A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, \"Criminals don't obey the law\" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'\" Response to Advantage 2: 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, \"Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.\" Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, \"Gun education is the best way to save young lives.\" The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to \"teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children\" Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life.\" According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that \"children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns\" and \"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation\"not violence.\" Response to Advantage 3: Look to \"Response to Harm 3:\" I stated that civilians would not feel safe and that it denies civilians a RIGHT to self-defense. Source: https://gun-control.procon.org...","Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime\n\"If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:\"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\"http://en.wikipedia.org......The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling.\"My opponent is clearly opposed to semantics, a sentiment I share. He has, however, failed to define an important term in this round: \"concealed carry handgun laws.\" He defined \"concealed carry, or CCW\" but neglected to discuss the \"law\" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be \"any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry.\" I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate.\"No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FFNo trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments.\"I agree to abide by these rules.\"Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robberyBOP even.I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.Good luck!!\"I also accept these definitions and stipulations, and wish my opponent the best of luck.I will now discuss the proposition itself: that concealed carry handgun laws (as previously defined) reduce violent crime.My opponent's support for this is rather brief and lacking in substance. I will take the time to refute it before continuing on to my case. His argument is as follows:\"I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear.\"This argument is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first premise in his argument is that \"the law does not reduce crime (A)\". I entirely agree with this, as laws in and of themselves are powerless. It is the enforcement of the law, not the law itself, that determines the outcome or effect of said law. However, the conclusion, \"the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws reduces violent crime (C)\", does not follow from premise (A). This is because my opponent is assuming the second premise - that \"concealed carry handgun laws will be successfully enforced (B)\". This premise, unlike premise (A), is woefully false. It is naive to assume that just because concealed carry handgun laws are enacted, we will be able to enforce them by ensuring that nobody carries a handgun. Admittedly, lawful citizens who wish to carry a handgun will be refused the opportunity to do so, but the illegal gun trade affords criminals the opportunity to acquire weapons (including handguns) and proceed to carry them concealed. Because the illegal gun trade and the concealed carry of a small handgun are both impossible to enforce completely, the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws will not match up to their intent. While the intent is noble - to eradicate handguns from the streets completely - the enforcement of concealed carry laws cannot ensure that criminals do not carry concealed handguns.I will now discuss my case, which is composed of 4 contentions:Contention 1: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws increase violent crime.I support this contention with historical, empirical data.\"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.\" [1]\"In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were \"compulsorily surrendered\" by February 1998. Using \"records of firearms held on firearms certificates,\" police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. ...the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.\" [1]\"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. ...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.\" [1]Contention 2: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws are Unconstitutional.The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution provides that \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" Clearly, by their very nature, concealed carry handgun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because these laws limit citizens' access to handguns. This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality.Contention 3: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Protect the Innocent.While one may think that concealed carry laws remove guns and thereby protect the innocent from harm, the opposite is true. As I discussed in my refutation of my opponent's argument, the enforcement gap essentially disarms the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals unaffected. The result is a world where armed criminals can shoot and kill unarmed and helpless citizens. This contention is supported by a poll done on felons in the United States:\"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: • 34% had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they \"knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun\" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\"\" [1]As you can see, handguns can aid innocent people by giving them protection from armed (or unarmed) criminals.Contention 4: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Weaken the United States.We see this in two points:Point A: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American accountability.This nation was founded on the principle that government is evil and must be held in check by the people. By limiting access to handguns, concealed carry laws forfeit the people's ability to protect themselves from a potentially oppresive government.Point B: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American strength.The US has 3 million military personnel, half of which are active. But even this number pales in comparison to the over-300-million people in the United States. One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted was to protect America from foreign invasion and by restricting access to handguns, my opponent would decrease the capabilities of America's most reliable and most important defense: its people.In light of this, I urge a CON ballot and eagerly await my opponent's response.[1]\"Gun Control Facts.\" By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 1/22/12. http://justfacts.com...;","Gun Control\nUnlike what the liberal media wants you to believe, UK crime rates is another primary example in making argument against gun control \" England introduced one of the most draconian gun control / ban policies in the western world, thereafter it is routinely on the top two of the most violent countries in the developed world and is significantly more violent than America! Note: I will reiterate that by stating \"more guns means less crime\" some people automatically assume it means that everyone should have a gun. That is not true; when we are talking about gun freedom and less crime, not everyone must have a firearm in order to lower the crime rate. What makes a society safe is the very freedom given to each and every individual to bear arms. This very notion in turn perpetually deters criminals and crazy individuals from committing crimes. US Violent Crime Rate on the Decline with More Guns In recent years, Americans have been buying guns at a record number. This is in spite of the fact that violent crime rate in the US is on a sharp decline according to the FBI\"s very own study. Courtesy of FBI: \"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.\" US violent crime rate fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive. So why is such a massive media mobilization and attacks against firearms from the media and the government? Is it because of they are taking advantage of the American people\"s emotion over rational and Facts, using the recent tragedies? After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn\"t do it. I sure as heck wouldn\"t want to live in a society where the only people who have guns are the police, military, and criminals. The 2nd Amendment: Gun Ownership is protected by the Constitution Most anti-gun advocates do not realize that unlike people in many other countries that have had their firearm forcefully taken away, the second amendment to the bill of rights is an unchangeable and unquestionable authority above the President and the Congress. Others rightly argue that because this is a right to self-defense, it is even above the Constitution; a God given right, it should never be taken away from the people regardless. Let\"s note that the Founding Fathers were not government elitists or presidents who were elected by corporate interest lobbying millions of dollars funneled to their campaigns. They were exceptionally wise men who studied the history, governments, cultures, and societies that went before them and wanted nothing but the good and prosperity of the people and their republic; that is exactly why they were ready to sacrifice their lives in defense of liberty and freedom from the British Colonialism. Therefore, any governmental restrictions on guns imposed on American citizens is unconstitutional and would literary mean an attack on the Constitution. We have to recognize that the Constitution of the United States has been one of the greatest human rights legislation in history: an exemplary manuscript that gives power to the people over the government or corporations. It has led a nation into freedom and prosperity; while forcing its government and its branches to remain faithful to its citizens. We have to repeat this: we need to understand that the Constitution as a whole is exactly what gave rise to the greatness, freedom and prosperity of not only America, but many other nations who have mimicked it as an example. The Second Amendment: \"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" The Founding Fathers were very clear about this: \"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples\" liberty teeth and keystone under independence\" From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable\"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference \" they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.\" \" George Washington\" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States) \"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves\" and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms\" The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.\" \" Richard Henry Lee \" American Revolutionary Led the American Declaration of Independence Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American \" The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.\" \" Tench Coxe, 1788. \"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.\" \" James Madison \" (Founding Father and the 4th President of the United States) 7. Guns Save Numerous Lives by Far and Large Self-defense is the very basic right of each and every individual, not just in the US, but around the world people should be able to protect themselves and their families. It is easy to see the lives supposedly lost to \"bad guns\" through the corporate controlled and biased media, but do we ever see thousands of other lives saved by firearm ownership? No, because it supports gun ownership, something liberals and enemy\"s, both foreign and domestic, don\"t want to let people know about! Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck, stopped him. \"I\"ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,\" said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss. Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. \"Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead,\" \" columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo. \"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year,\" \" Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. \"We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don\"t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it\"s not a trivial number.\" It is reported that more than 200,000 women use guns in the US for protections from rappers, robbers and thugs. Now the question is this: are we going to take that away from the bit by bit, bullet by bullet through restrictions and legislation after legislation? 6. Banning Guns Does Not Mean Criminals Won\"t Get Them \"If guns are outlawed only outlawed will have guns\" It is foolish to assume that any type of gun control proposition would mean criminals would turn their guns in or would not access guns. As a matter of fact they will more easily monopolize guns in a nation where guns were previously an individual right; gun sales and trafficking will most assuredly become easier only for criminals. Again, historical examples in banning drugs and alcohol point to this very fact. Simply look at the mess the \"War on Drugs\" has become in America. Gun control only means that the guns will be taken out of the hands of million law-abiding American, most of whom use them for protection, most of whom have never even shot a live target, never mind a human, and they go right into the hands of the criminals. While criminals will never turn their guns in, it is always the regular citizenry who will be left defenseless. For example Mexico imposes some of the most strictest gun control laws, yet over 50,000 people die in the hands of criminal on yearly basis. Another great example is the gun control laws introduced in Australia, which caused a massive spike in nearly every crime rate category. 5. Switzerland: A Low Crime, High Gun Ownership Modern Country The gun example of the country of Switzerland is so great and telling that we had to make it as a single point in our top 10 gun freedom list. The Swiss government not only does NOT impose any gun restrictions on their population but they literary demands that every household have a gun. And did you know that the Swiss government actually trains every adult on guns when they purchase a weapon. So how do crime rates fair in Switzerland? With all the guns available in the hands the Swiss people and based on the points above it should be an easy guess. Switzerland is the safest country in the modern world; one of the safest in the world. 4. Knives and Bats Kill More People: Guns are also Inanimate Objects It is yet another evidence against any gun control laws that bats, knives and other inanimate objects are the cause for the loss of many more lives than the use of guns. Therefore it is absolutely irrational to impose any type of gun control on the population. Statistically Americans are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a rifle. But that is besides the point that an inanimate object does not kill, it is a criminal that kills. \"To blame a gun for man\"s decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object.\" 3. Dangerous Psychiatric Drugs Not the Inanimate Guns In almost every shooting there has been another undeniable trend; every single one of the recent crazed shooters have been one some sort of psychiatric mind altering drugs promoted and sponsored by the corrupt media. This trend is most noticeable in the Aurora massacre, Colorado and Sandy Hook shooting. It is astonishing how the corporate media quickly points figures at the guns but not the crazed individuals who has been having his brained chewed by these dangerous drugs, which most TV stations proudly sponsor. Nearly every major school shooter has been on prescriptions drugs! 2. Governments Cannot Help the Victims Many still are under the delusion that if guns are confiscated government will protect them against criminals. Again, case after case historically we have witnessed that not to be true. When a government strips the regular citizenry from their right to defend themselves, they will almost always put innocents directly into the lion\"s den;- defenseless. Most 911 emergency calls are responded no quicker than 5 minutes. An insane criminal (on dangerous anti-represented and other mental drugs of course) in most cases will have finished his dirty act in less than a minute, or at least caused enough damage to make it an unfortunate tragedy. 1. Defense against a Tyrannical Government One of the greatest and most widely misunderstood facts about the Second Amendment is that some still tend to think that it was including for \"hunting\". The Second Amendment was NOT put in the Bill of Rights for hunting!; the Second Amendment gives the regular citizenry the right to defend themselves, against thugs and criminals but more importantly it was put firmly in place by the wise founding fathers to protect the people against the rise of any tyrannical government; whether a single dictator, a government tainted by lobbyists, a government directed by corporate interest of banks and financiers. It is important to realize that every tyrant in our recent history aimed to Recent history is filled with many chilling examples over and over again; where they take guns, state imposed tyranny brews shortly. Millions of innocent people have fall prey to their government, in the biggest cause of human lives called Democide. \"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians under Turkish rule, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \"In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million innocent Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. \"In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated \"In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \"In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \"In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \"Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Top 6 Quotes \" What did Tyrannical Dictators and Governments Have Said about Guns? \"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don\"t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?\" \" Joseph Stalin \" Russian Dictator \"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem\" \" Joseph Stalin \"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.\" \" Adolf Hitler \"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew\"s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in \"1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of \"1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.\" \" 1938 Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews\" Possession of Weapons) \"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.\".\" - Mao \" Communist Chinese Dictator \"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future.\" \" Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag Top 10 Quotes \" What Did American Patriots Say about Guns and Liberty? 10. \"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.\" \" Patrick Henry\" Founding Father 9. \"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.\" \" Senator Hubert Humphrey 8. \"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property\" Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.\" - Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary) 7. \"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government\" \" Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary) 6. \"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference \" they deserve a place of honor with all that\"s good.\" \" George Washington\" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States) 5. \"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them\"\" \" Richard Henry Lee\" American Revolutionary who Led the American Declaration of Independence 4. \"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.\"- Thomas Jefferson\" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States) 3. \"And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms \".\"- Thomas Jefferson\" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States) 2. \"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them\"\" \" George Mason\" (Founding Father of the United States \" Most influential in institution of the Bill of Rights) 1. \"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take It.\" \"Thomas Jefferson\" (Founding Father and the 3rd President of the United States) The choice is clear here; It is FREEDOM or TYRANNY and disarmament is the first step towards tyranny \" a recipe for disarmament of the citizens and/or their future children. If the Americans to support the rest of their freedoms they have to stand by and protect their second amendment, even if you as an individual personally does not like guns or does not like to be around them. Sources: http://infowars.com... http://NaturalNews.com... http://fbi.gov...","Gun Control\nPlease forgive that my posts are not cleanly formatted. I am using my cell phone as my laptop is no longer functional. I will begin my argument by showing that American courts have repeatedly supported the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms. All of these cases should be viewed as an extension of the Second Amendment. The cases I am referring to are as follows: -Presser V. State of Illinois (1886) *1 \"But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.\" Miller V. United States (1939) *2 \"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a \"shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length\" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.\" While this case appears to be contrary to my side of the debate, I would like to highlight two portions of the case. 1.) The milita is defined as all males physically capable of acting for the common defense. As women are a significant portion of todays armed forces and allowed to serve in a combat role, a modern militia would imply virtually everyone. 2.) \"When called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.\" Thus supporting private civilian ownership of modern firearms. In regards to the aspect of the case regarding the legality of a sawn off shotgun, I wish to remind you that they are legal with the proper process and tax stamp as outlined in the gun control act of 1968. Heller V. District of Columbia (2008) *3 \"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.\" 2. \"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court\"s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller\"s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those \"in common use at the time\" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.\" Pp. 54\"\"56. -Peruta V. City of San Diego (2013) (posting a summary on this one as it does a good enough job explaining) *4 Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's concealed handgun laws. At issue was whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen had a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The court concluded that the right to bear arms included the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home and that carrying weapons for the lawful purpose of self defense was a central component of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment required that the state permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. The California scheme did not allow the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of such regulations, the court found their approaches unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because the County's \"good cause\" permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. On to a rebuttal. You stated that an AK-47 in a typical American household was excessive. Current estimates put the number of modern sporting rifles (semi-automatic, detachable box magazine) in America at somewhere around 30 million. Meaning that they currently are in fact typical in an American household. With the population at somewhere around 315 million, that is a MSR in one in every ten homes. Which is unquestionably \"in common use.\" According to FBI homicide statistics *5 from 2011, only 323 murders were committed using rifles in that year. For comparison, on average 77 people per year choke to death on hot dogs. By the numbers... an assault rifle is only 4x more likely to kill you than a hot dog. In regards to- \"A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied.\" I will not deny that there are those on BOTH sides who currently believe that is the case. I say on both sides due to the large number of liberals who are completely ignorant of past/current gun control legislation and believe fully automatic weapons are readily available for anyone at anytime. Which is just not the case. \"It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens.\" [2] \"Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount.\" It is exactly because not all Americans are law abiding that the right to keep and more importantly bear arms is an essential right. Studies continually find that citizens with permits to carry a concealed weapon are responsible for a disproportionately LOW amount of crime. In response to your statement that assault rifles should only be owned by law enforcement and military members, nearly half of the owners of MSR's are present or former military/LE. I would argue that just as congress shall enact no law that does not equally apply to them as it does to civilians; gun control should not restrict any firearm from a civilian while permitting a police officer have it. I believe the opposite holds true as well. Not really a point of rebuttal, but you are correct in saying that a self defense weapon should be a pistol and maybe a shotgun. This is due to the over penetration which would result from using a rifle caliber. Over penetration is also the reason nearly all self defense rounds are hollow points. I wouldn't choose a shotgun simply because I can't control where that shot will go. Then again, a shotgun does have the advantage that you probably won't have to shoot after you pump. In regard to your equations which are a vast oversimplification of a larger problem... I present to you an excerpt from a harvard study on that exact topic. *6 \"\"the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.\" In regards to your closing statement, specifically: \"the TEA Party members especially - claim they want to take their guns away. These misinterpretations of the facts must end.\" I wish to direct you to look into what is currently happening in New York and Connecticut. Basically that is exactly what is happening. In a display of patriotism and testicular fortitude, Connecticut MSR owners have overwhelmingly ignored the mandated registration. Leaving gun control proponents in an interesting situation... how do you respond when you've just turned potentially as many as 100k citizens into felons? Do you act with force against previously law abiding citizens? Locking them up is certainly not an option as it would cost more than the state earns annually. They are left with a choice between not enforcing it/repealing it or sending SWAT teams against a significant portion of their population. Which would most certainly do more harm than maintaining the status quo. To the gun owners of Connecticut- Stand strong. Molon Labe. *1 https://supreme.justia.com... *2 http://www.law.cornell.edu... *3 http://supreme.justia.com... *4 http://law.justia.com... *5 http://www.fbi.gov... *6 http://www.bostonmagazine.com...","July Tournament\nC1) SuicidesA) Gun StorageHarvard Injury Control Research Center analyzed a number of national random-digit dial telephone surveys and found that, “Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner.” And that, “Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely.”(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)In, “a national random telephone survey of 2,770 adults… of the 392 respondents who had at least one child and one firearm in the home, 22 percent had a loaded gun, 32 percent had an unlocked gun and 8 percent had a gun stored loaded and unlocked.”http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...“More than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with firearms that are stored loaded and unlocked. Because the guns used in youth suicides and unintentional injuries primarily come from victims’ homes, storage practices that allow for easy access to a firearm pose a threat to the safety of young people.”(http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...)Via the inability to store firearms properly; a teenager going through the extremely difficult time of adolescence has easy access to a weapon that they should not have. Whether that means that they bring it to school to show off to friends, to kill numerous classmates, or to kill themselves. Now while a substantial amount of teenagers wouldn’t take advantage of this easy access for harmful uses, the fact that any amount could is too many.This easy access to firearms poses many other problems as well. Anyone with a mental disability, or falsely identifying a friend/family as an intruder, or someone who is drunk, someone who is on drugs (not in their right mind), a marital fight, a toddler or young child mistaking it for a toy, etc. could all end in an unwanted death.This ease of access to firearms spawns more homicides, more suicides, more accidental shootings, and more deaths.B) Firearms & SuicideI.“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment…states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.” (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) Owning a gun is a dangerous possession to have; you will actually be three times more likely to choose to commit suicide than someone who doesn’t own a gun. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)II.“In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death.”(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)What we can draw from the evidence is two things:(1) Most suicides are done by firearms.(2) Suicide by firearm is the most lethal method as 85% end in death.Now while a ban on firearms will not decrease the amount of people that will commit suicide, it will save lives.Poison:For every successful suicide by poison, there are 42 attempted suicides by poison. That’s a 2.38% fatality rate.(http://lostallhope.com...)Cutting Wrists/Arms/Legs:A 6% fatality rate, for around every 17 attempts, only 1 succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Overdose on Drugs:A 12.3% fatality rate, for every 8 attempts, only one succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Hanging:75% fatality rate, for every 4 attempts, 3 succeed.(http://www.medscape.com...)If someone fails to commit suicide, they are rushed to a hospital where they are treated for their injuries. Then they are taken to get treatment to help their depression, this treatment works 80-90% of the time and the victim does not commit suicide again.(http://www.save.org...)“Most suicide attempts do not result in death. Many of these attempts are done in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts are often a cry for help.\"(http://www.nlm.nih.gov...)Many people who commit suicide don’t actually want to die; they just want help with their problem. Having a suicide attempt less likely to be successful gives the victim the opportunity to seek help, fix their problem, and save their life. A ban on guns fixes this issue.C2) Firearm Accidents\"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…”(http://www.thedailybeast.com...)Firearms are extremely deadly weapons; therefore extreme caution and responsibility are necessary when handling them. Despite the aggressive training required to get a license;“Take a 14-hour course (8 hours classroom, 6 hours range) in the carrying and use of firearms given by a Bureau- certified firearms training instructor at a Bureau certified training facility… Pass the written and range exams given at the end of the course”(http://www.bsis.ca.gov...)This goes to show that despite intensive training measures, gun accidents still occur.Firearm accidents are also much more likely to occur than other harmful accidents. For example, poison containers come with lids that are generally more difficult to remove and knives require very solid pressure in certain areas on the body to be fatal, all a gun requires is a pull of the trigger.Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave the person who committed the act with a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life.With gun accidents sending 200 people to the emergency room every day, and thousands of people with gunshot wounds every year, we have to realize that guns are not worth the risk.C3) HomicideA)“Handgun purchase was more common among persons dying from… or homicide (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.7), and particularly among those dying from… or gun homicide (OR 3.3; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.3), than among controls. No such differences were seen for non-gun suicide or homicide… Handgun purchasers accounted for less than 1% of the study population but 2.4% of gun homicides, 14.2% of gun suicides, and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths.”The study concluded that; “Among adults who died in California in 1998, those dying from violence were more likely than those dying from non-injury causes to have purchased a handgun…legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death”(http://injuryprevention.bmj.com...)Evidence shows that the act of purchasing a handgun significantly increases your chances of a violent death. These statistics match what you would expect from a society where guns are legal. If someone is wielding a gun against an attacker who just wants to steal some items from their home, they are placing both themselves and the attacker at greater risk of death in the process.B)“Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention.”(http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)Of the 12, 765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with guns. That’s 69.4% of all murders performed with a firearm.(http://www.infoplease.com...)If guns are banned, a murderer will have to use some other type of weapon that is less effective than a gun would be. A ban on guns would lower the effectiveness of murders and save the lives of murder victims.Conclusion:The United States should enact a nation-wide ban on all firearms to; reduce suicide rates, reduce deaths from accidents, and reduce homicide rates.","Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.\nTo start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have \"unrestricted carry\" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's \"right of the people to keep and bear arms,\" and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...","Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.\nThe right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that \"bearing\" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.","Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws\nOne can reveal a concealed gun in order to deter a criminal."],"string":"[\n \"Gun Control\\nWashington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a \\\"smoking gun\\\" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion,\\\" April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987. The study concluded there was a \\\"prompt decline\\\" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C. Handgun bans are enforceable Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates is also wrong when he claims that laws restricting access to firearms in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are \\\"unenforceable.\\\" On the contrary, it is because these laws have been so effectively enforced that gun-related death rates in those nations pale compared to those in the U.S. According to \\\"The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s\\\" (2006), the 2001/2002 rates of firearm death per 100,000 for the countries in question are as follows: U.S.: 10.27; Canada: 2.6; Australia: 1.68; and England/Wales: .38. What this means is that I have evidence on gun control and you don't, shows it is enforceable and I already talked of the impact in my last post. All of your arguements fall, because I have proven gun control can work and be enforcable. I'm am not basing it on assumption either gun control leads to less guns in the hands of people, leads to less harm to people. States with the greatest number of guns in the home also have the highest rates of homicide, a new study finds. The study, in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine, looked at gun ownership in all 50 states and then compared the results with the number of people killed over a three-year period. The research, the authors said, 'suggests that household firearms are a direct and an indirect source of firearms used to kill Americans both in their homes and on the streets.' The researchers, led by Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, drew on data gathered by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the agency surveyed more than 200,000 people and asked them, among other questions, whether they had a gun in or near the home. In states in the highest quarter of gun ownership, the study found, the overall homicide rate was 60 percent higher than in states in the lowest quarter. The rate of homicides involving guns was more than twice as high. Although homicide rates may not rise – private handgun ownership increases suicide rates and accidental shootings which are not represented in homicide statistics The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a \\\"smoking gun\\\" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion,\\\" April 9, Lexis] Miami Police Chief John Timoney, whose reign as top cop in Philadelphia brought a reduction in homicides to below 400 for the first time in a decade, said that if the decision overturning the handgun ban is affirmed, there is likely to be a rise in the number of suicides and accidental shootings. \\\"And it won't necessarily be reflected in the homicide rate, because suicides and not-fatal shootings won't show up in those statistics,\\\" Timoney said. \\\"You'll have an increase in those shootings . . . and opponents [of the ban] will say that the homicide rate didn't rise.\\\" Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68. Myron Boor, \\\"Methods of Suicide and Implications for Suicide Prevention,\\\" Journal of Clinical Psychology 37, (January 1981): 70-75. For all our fear and fascination with guns and homicide, the fact remains that most firearm deaths in America are not the result of homicide (10,828 for 1999), but suicide (16,599 for 1999). It is estimated that only 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners Duggan, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, 2003 [Mark, \\\"Guns and Suicide,\\\" in Evaluating Gun Policy etd by Jens Ludwig and Philip J Cook, p 65] Individuals who own a gun are more likely to commit suicide than are other individuals. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that much of the relationship between state-level gun ownership and suicide rates seems driven by a positive correlation between suicidal tendencies and gun ownership. The finding that the male-female suicide ratio is significantly greater in places with more gun ownership suggests that instrumentality effects may also partially explain this relationship, though one cannot rule out the hypothesis that gender-specific suicidal tendencies vary with the availability of guns. Finally, it appears that reductions in gun ownership have not been the driving force behind the fall in the suicide rate. Firearm-related domestic violence has disproportionately bad effects upon children Arthur Kellermann, MD, MPH, et al., \\\"Firearms and Family Violence,\\\" Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 17 (August 1999): 699-716, citing Ernest N. Jouriles et al., \\\"Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations with Child Behavior Problems,\\\" Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 2 (1998): 178-194. The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not. Firearm ownership negatively and disproportionately affects women James E. Bailey, MD, MPH, et al., \\\"Risk Factors for Violence Death of Women in the Home,\\\" Archives of Internal Medicine 157, no. 7 (1997): 777-782. A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that fewer guns mean fewer deaths Leftwich, senior counsel of Legal Community Against Violence, 2006 [Juliet A., Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts, Sept 22, http://www.lcav.org...] Kates rejects the \\\"quasi-religious belief that more guns (particularly handguns) mean more violence and death, and, concomitantly, fewer guns mean fewer deaths.\\\" Yet this is precisely what the empirical evidence shows, as discussed by David Hemenway, director of Harvard's Injury Control Research Center, in his book \\\"Private Guns, Public Health\\\" (2004). Numerous studies have found that having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm injury, suicide and homicide. Thus gun control leads to less guns, equals less death, meaning even suicide rates equal out gun violence, We need to cut that death down. Also I also have proven that gun ownership leads to a negative effect on women and children. Gun control works, and please, understand me, don't just base, a vote for the neg is a vote for more gun deaths and that is not safe to me.\",\n \"Gun Control\\nOkay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, \\\"assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level\\\" and \\\"states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.\\\" While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, \\\"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.\\\" A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, \\\"Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'\\\" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would \\\"make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.\\\" Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, \\\"The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life\\\" and \\\"many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.\\\" Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: \\\"every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.\\\" Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, \\\"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\\\" A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would \\\"give too much power to the government over the people.\\\" The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, \\\"if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.\\\" Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, \\\"The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!\\\"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's \\\"Leading Causes of Death Reports,\\\" between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, \\\"Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.\\\" Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, \\\"Gun education is the best way to save young lives.\\\" The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to \\\"teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life.\\\" According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that \\\"children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns\\\" and \\\"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence.\\\" Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.\",\n \"Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime\\nFirst off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry: \\\"mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. \\\" I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements. Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry. Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the \\\"members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system. \\\" The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating \\\"there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. \\\" My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation. My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, \\\"with correct instruction\\\". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something. My opponent provides this as evidence. \\\"Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \\\" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org...; I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case: \\\"Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. \\\" As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%? The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1. \\\"If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. \\\" (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \\\"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \\\" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used. I will now state my opinion. It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone. My opponent advocates concealed carry. It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry. =Experiment= 20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm. I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat. For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.\",\n \"CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities\\nImminent threatIn round 2, Pro said, \\\"Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns.\\\"But then, in the next round he argues \\\"How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice.\\\"He's contradicting himself. If educators feel that there isn't an imminent threat, then they're fine to ban guns. That means that students would all be on campus unarmed. If there suddenly WAS an imminent threat, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to go home or to a gun shop in town, arm themselves and come back. Instead, they should just go home period. A college isn't a war zone. Law enforcement professionals should deal with the imminent threat.Low rates of crime on campusPro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. None of those incidents happened on campus and so they are irrelevant to the current topic. For instance, people are far less likely to get caught up in road rage on a college campus than they would be on, say, a highway.Pro's own source acknowledges that there is a far lower rate of crime on college campuses than in the rest of the United States (1). Therefore, it makes no sense to use off campus crime as an example of what could happen on campus.Legal ownersIt's true that it would be perfect if we could ban all guns from college campuses, and Pro is right that sometimes people will still smuggle in guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activity will occur sometimes. Passing legislation that forces universities to allow permit-holders to bring guns onto campus will do nothing to prevent illegal guns either. It will just increase the total number of weapons on campus.Among the examples that Pro cut-and-pasted, there was one where students \\\"overwhelmed a man and took away his firearm\\\". That could happen, presumably, to any of the permit-holding gun-weilding students too: they could be overwhelmed and their firearm taken away. SummaryMost college students and staff do not want guns on campus. We know this because in states where colleges can make their own choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even Pro agrees that this is the right thing for them to do when there is no imminent threat, and his own sources agree that campuses have relatively low rates of crime. Pro has given no reason to depart from the status quo.Thank you tajshar2k for this debate. (1) http://concealedcampus.org...;\",\n \"Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws\\nOpen carry deters; most criminals are rational.\",\n \"Banning guns\\nI believe that guns should be banned. You may say that guns are not all harmful and can do good things like hunting. However, Only 4. 2 % hunt and there are many farms that can provide us meat. Also, The shooting test, Written test, Background checks, Mental health screening, And interviews with family members may not help because people could suddenly become different and become assassins. Thank you.\",\n \"Right-to-Carry\\nStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in \\\"More Guns, Less Crime\\\", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings: While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime. Non discretionary or \\\"shall-issue\\\" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men. The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this \\\"halo\\\" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area. The increased presence of concealed handguns \\\"does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns.\\\" thanks charles h mousseau jr NRA member\",\n \"Right to carry arms\\nI, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, \\\"shall-issue\\\" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.\",\n \"We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed\\nA. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of \\\"Guns in America\\\" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that \\\"only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.\\\"7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as \\\"Saturday Night Specials.\\\" B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the \\\"Safest State Award.\\\"12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 \\\"crimes\\\" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, \\\"Armed Resistance to Crime,\\\" at 173, 185. 4Kleck and Gertz, \\\"Armed Resistance to Crime,\\\" at 185. 5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, \\\"Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,\\\" NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org... on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. 7George F. Will, \\\"Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?,\\\" Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. 8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, \\\"Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense,\\\" The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, \\\"Armed Resistance to Crime.\\\" br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., \\\"More Guns, Less Violent Crime,\\\" The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, \\\"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,\\\" University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). 11Lott and Mustard, \\\"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.\\\" 12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, \\\"Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003,\\\" Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com.... Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states. 13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, \\\"Crime in the United States,\\\" Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79. 15 John R. Lott, Jr., \\\"Right to carry would disprove horror stories,\\\" Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003). 16Gary Kleck, \\\"Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,\\\" Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15. 17Compare Kleck, \\\"Crime Control,\\\" at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, \\\"Month to Month Statistics: 1991.\\\" (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.) 18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140. 19Kleck, \\\"Crime Control,\\\" at 13. 20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, \\\"The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,\\\" Research I will reply to your stats next round\",\n \"On Campus Concealed Carry\\nNegative Case Contention 1: Concealed weapons permission is unnecessary on campus. Although many point to such incidents as the Virginia Tech shootings to justify the need for concealed weapons, most college campuses are relatively safe compared to other areas in the United States. In 2002, the Justice Department discovered that crime on campus is 20% lower than the national average for individuals of the same age category as college students, and that 93% of the violence that occurs against students takes place off campus. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...). This means that, as a whole, students are more while they reside on campus than they are in the outside world. This has two impacts. First, it demonstrates that concealed carry laws are absolutely unnecessary on campus because the crime rate is extremely low. Since there is no need to solve a problem that does not exist, concealed carry permits should not be extended to the campus. Second, it actually demonstrates that concealed carry laws have an increase in crime; most college campuses are safe without the concealed carry provision, but the outside world, which permits concealed carry, is not as safe as college campuses are. This means that concealed carry provisions may be the reason that crime is higher in the outside world, so increasing the number of guns on campus could potentially replicate the disaster. Gary Kleck, a gun-carrying advocate, concedes, \\\"Both gun carrying and gun violence are thus phenomena almost entirely confined to the world outside schools.\\\" Contention 2: Crime would increase on campus. Students who own guns are more likely to be mentally unstable and dangerous than their nonviolent peers. While the college rates for illicit drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental instability is high, studies have shown that individuals who are prone to carrying guns on campus are likely to be more involved in such debauchery than the average student. Two studies of college students discovered, for example, that students with guns more likely to engaged in such risky behaviors as binge drinking, use of crack and cocaine, having DUIs, vandalizing property, and clashing with the police. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...). This means that the students who will actually benefit from the law will be those prone to felonious behavior. Given that most students will not carry guns, and that the students who do possess them will not possess the proper mental faculties to rationally prevent themselves from committing crimes, and that these students are more likely to engage in risky, illegal behavior than the average non-gun carrying college student, crimes on campus will be much easier to commit than they were previously. This means that giving risk-prone students access to weapons could potentially increase violence and other felonies on campus. Since this violates the rights of all, this is a reason to reject the gun laws. Contention 3: Concealed weapons would detract from the educational environment of the school. Given that the mission of colleges is to provide a safe, comfortable environment for a student to obtain an education, and that guns create an aura of fear on campus, permitting concealed weapons on campus would foster mistrust and detract from a student's ability to gain an education. Rather than proving that the campus is safe, the students at a college would attempt to minimize interactions with other students for fear of inciting them to emotional violence. A study conducted to determine the fear of the dissemination of guns discovered that 71% of people would feel threatened by the increase of guns in their community, and that 85% of non-gun owners were opposed to the spread of guns because they felt that it would foster mistrust and lessen their security. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...) This increase in fear would decrease educational freedom by minimizing educational interactions, so concealed weapons should not be permitted on campus. Contention 4: Increasing the number of guns on campus could cause confusion and thus foster a greater loss of life. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A shooter enters campus and threatens a student, who proceeds to pull out a weapon of his own to confront the aggressor. Students nearby also begin to arm themselves and enter the ensuing fray because they feel that their friends are in danger (we cannot assume that students will only arm themselves against the shooter.) By the time the police arrives, the officers can never reliably know which student instigated the conflict, which students are actually dangerous, and which students were trying to defend themselves. This scenario demonstrates the fact that increasing the number of guns on campus would generate confusion and could cause police officers to threaten even the innocent gun-wielders simply because it would be impossible to identify the actual threat. However, if only one shooter had been armed, the police could easily identify the individual and arrest him, thus minimizing the likelihood of his escape and decreasing the potential loss of life. So, because concealed weapons are unnecessary and detrimental to safety and security, you should negate. Rebuttals First, he mentions Virginia Tech and Columbine as reasons that guns should be permitted on campus. While these incidents were horrific, the reason that the public knows about them is that they are unique. The media does not cover every day shootings in the poor downtown areas because these are expected to happen, while crimes on campus are often covered because the stories are unique and sensational. This means that although he can provide you with a few specific, well-known incidents, we should prefer my statistics in the first contention that explain that most campuses are safer than other areas of the United States, meaning that while a few incidents do occur, on the whole, concealed weapons are unnecessary. Moreover, you can cross-apply my fourth contention about confusion here, because the incidents would have been magnified if some students had engaged the shooters in a conflict. Finally, this problem does not require guns to solve; more incidents can be prevented by increasing the amount of police security and support for students on campus (directly solves his \\\"police\\\" argument.) In his second point, he mentions that some campuses with permits have not had any major incidents. First, this could be explained by the fact that most college students do not wish to own guns, and that they cannot have such permits anyways because they need to be 21, so the prevalence of guns on campus is probably very slim. Second, this is empirically false as there have been over 1,400 cases in the state of Florida alone in which CCW permit holders have conducted violent felonies. (Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org...) For example: Tucson, Arizona, October 29, 2002. Robert Flores, Jr. shot and killed three professors, and then himself, in a rampage at the University of Arizona School of Nursing, where he was a failing student. Reportedly, he had told classmates about a year before that he had obtained a CCW permit. Finally, he claims that only those individuals who could carry weapons elsewhere would be permitted to have weapons on campus. Turn this against him because most students across the nation cannot obtain concealed weapons permits until the age of 21, meaning that the majority of college students could not even defend themselves in the case of a violent felony anyways. Second, this increases the likelihood of felonies as individuals outside of campus with permits would be able to safely roam onto campus with their weapons, meaning that they could easily use them against students. Thus, negate and reject concealed carry permits.\",\n \"should all guns be banned\\nResponse to Harm 1: Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., gun rights activist, stated, \\\"The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them.\\\" According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who \\\"used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence\\\" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. Response to Harm 2: More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC's \\\"Leading Causes of Death Reports,\\\" between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. Response to Harm 3: According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would \\\"make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.\\\" Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, \\\"The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life\\\" and \\\"many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.\\\" Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: \\\"every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.\\\" Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, \\\"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\\\" A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Response to your plan: There are a couple of problems with your plan. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government, the colonists were running from the British government, fought a war, and made the Constitution of United States of America to protect themselves. The fact that you say that a government could pass a law, moreover make THREATS, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country; a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising if there a second civil war happens in return. Response to Advantage 1: A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, \\\"assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level\\\" and \\\"states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.\\\" While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, \\\"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.\\\" A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, \\\"Criminals don't obey the law\\\" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'\\\" Response to Advantage 2: 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, \\\"Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.\\\" Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, \\\"Gun education is the best way to save young lives.\\\" The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to \\\"teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children\\\" Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life.\\\" According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that \\\"children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns\\\" and \\\"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation\\\"not violence.\\\" Response to Advantage 3: Look to \\\"Response to Harm 3:\\\" I stated that civilians would not feel safe and that it denies civilians a RIGHT to self-defense. Source: https://gun-control.procon.org...\",\n \"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime\\n\\\"If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:\\\"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\\\"http://en.wikipedia.org......The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling.\\\"My opponent is clearly opposed to semantics, a sentiment I share. He has, however, failed to define an important term in this round: \\\"concealed carry handgun laws.\\\" He defined \\\"concealed carry, or CCW\\\" but neglected to discuss the \\\"law\\\" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be \\\"any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry.\\\" I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate.\\\"No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FFNo trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments.\\\"I agree to abide by these rules.\\\"Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robberyBOP even.I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.Good luck!!\\\"I also accept these definitions and stipulations, and wish my opponent the best of luck.I will now discuss the proposition itself: that concealed carry handgun laws (as previously defined) reduce violent crime.My opponent's support for this is rather brief and lacking in substance. I will take the time to refute it before continuing on to my case. His argument is as follows:\\\"I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear.\\\"This argument is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first premise in his argument is that \\\"the law does not reduce crime (A)\\\". I entirely agree with this, as laws in and of themselves are powerless. It is the enforcement of the law, not the law itself, that determines the outcome or effect of said law. However, the conclusion, \\\"the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws reduces violent crime (C)\\\", does not follow from premise (A). This is because my opponent is assuming the second premise - that \\\"concealed carry handgun laws will be successfully enforced (B)\\\". This premise, unlike premise (A), is woefully false. It is naive to assume that just because concealed carry handgun laws are enacted, we will be able to enforce them by ensuring that nobody carries a handgun. Admittedly, lawful citizens who wish to carry a handgun will be refused the opportunity to do so, but the illegal gun trade affords criminals the opportunity to acquire weapons (including handguns) and proceed to carry them concealed. Because the illegal gun trade and the concealed carry of a small handgun are both impossible to enforce completely, the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws will not match up to their intent. While the intent is noble - to eradicate handguns from the streets completely - the enforcement of concealed carry laws cannot ensure that criminals do not carry concealed handguns.I will now discuss my case, which is composed of 4 contentions:Contention 1: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws increase violent crime.I support this contention with historical, empirical data.\\\"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.\\\" [1]\\\"In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were \\\"compulsorily surrendered\\\" by February 1998. Using \\\"records of firearms held on firearms certificates,\\\" police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. ...the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.\\\" [1]\\\"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. ...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.\\\" [1]Contention 2: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws are Unconstitutional.The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution provides that \\\"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\\\" Clearly, by their very nature, concealed carry handgun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because these laws limit citizens' access to handguns. This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality.Contention 3: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Protect the Innocent.While one may think that concealed carry laws remove guns and thereby protect the innocent from harm, the opposite is true. As I discussed in my refutation of my opponent's argument, the enforcement gap essentially disarms the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals unaffected. The result is a world where armed criminals can shoot and kill unarmed and helpless citizens. This contention is supported by a poll done on felons in the United States:\\\"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: • 34% had been \\\"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\\\" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they \\\"knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun\\\" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been \\\"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\\\"\\\" [1]As you can see, handguns can aid innocent people by giving them protection from armed (or unarmed) criminals.Contention 4: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Weaken the United States.We see this in two points:Point A: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American accountability.This nation was founded on the principle that government is evil and must be held in check by the people. By limiting access to handguns, concealed carry laws forfeit the people's ability to protect themselves from a potentially oppresive government.Point B: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American strength.The US has 3 million military personnel, half of which are active. But even this number pales in comparison to the over-300-million people in the United States. One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted was to protect America from foreign invasion and by restricting access to handguns, my opponent would decrease the capabilities of America's most reliable and most important defense: its people.In light of this, I urge a CON ballot and eagerly await my opponent's response.[1]\\\"Gun Control Facts.\\\" By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 1/22/12. http://justfacts.com...;\",\n \"Gun Control\\nUnlike what the liberal media wants you to believe, UK crime rates is another primary example in making argument against gun control \\\" England introduced one of the most draconian gun control / ban policies in the western world, thereafter it is routinely on the top two of the most violent countries in the developed world and is significantly more violent than America! Note: I will reiterate that by stating \\\"more guns means less crime\\\" some people automatically assume it means that everyone should have a gun. That is not true; when we are talking about gun freedom and less crime, not everyone must have a firearm in order to lower the crime rate. What makes a society safe is the very freedom given to each and every individual to bear arms. This very notion in turn perpetually deters criminals and crazy individuals from committing crimes. US Violent Crime Rate on the Decline with More Guns In recent years, Americans have been buying guns at a record number. This is in spite of the fact that violent crime rate in the US is on a sharp decline according to the FBI\\\"s very own study. Courtesy of FBI: \\\"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.\\\" US violent crime rate fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive. So why is such a massive media mobilization and attacks against firearms from the media and the government? Is it because of they are taking advantage of the American people\\\"s emotion over rational and Facts, using the recent tragedies? After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn\\\"t do it. I sure as heck wouldn\\\"t want to live in a society where the only people who have guns are the police, military, and criminals. The 2nd Amendment: Gun Ownership is protected by the Constitution Most anti-gun advocates do not realize that unlike people in many other countries that have had their firearm forcefully taken away, the second amendment to the bill of rights is an unchangeable and unquestionable authority above the President and the Congress. Others rightly argue that because this is a right to self-defense, it is even above the Constitution; a God given right, it should never be taken away from the people regardless. Let\\\"s note that the Founding Fathers were not government elitists or presidents who were elected by corporate interest lobbying millions of dollars funneled to their campaigns. They were exceptionally wise men who studied the history, governments, cultures, and societies that went before them and wanted nothing but the good and prosperity of the people and their republic; that is exactly why they were ready to sacrifice their lives in defense of liberty and freedom from the British Colonialism. Therefore, any governmental restrictions on guns imposed on American citizens is unconstitutional and would literary mean an attack on the Constitution. We have to recognize that the Constitution of the United States has been one of the greatest human rights legislation in history: an exemplary manuscript that gives power to the people over the government or corporations. It has led a nation into freedom and prosperity; while forcing its government and its branches to remain faithful to its citizens. We have to repeat this: we need to understand that the Constitution as a whole is exactly what gave rise to the greatness, freedom and prosperity of not only America, but many other nations who have mimicked it as an example. The Second Amendment: \\\"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\\\" The Founding Fathers were very clear about this: \\\"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples\\\" liberty teeth and keystone under independence\\\" From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable\\\"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference \\\" they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.\\\" \\\" George Washington\\\" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States) \\\"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves\\\" and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms\\\" The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.\\\" \\\" Richard Henry Lee \\\" American Revolutionary Led the American Declaration of Independence Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American \\\" The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.\\\" \\\" Tench Coxe, 1788. \\\"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.\\\" \\\" James Madison \\\" (Founding Father and the 4th President of the United States) 7. Guns Save Numerous Lives by Far and Large Self-defense is the very basic right of each and every individual, not just in the US, but around the world people should be able to protect themselves and their families. It is easy to see the lives supposedly lost to \\\"bad guns\\\" through the corporate controlled and biased media, but do we ever see thousands of other lives saved by firearm ownership? No, because it supports gun ownership, something liberals and enemy\\\"s, both foreign and domestic, don\\\"t want to let people know about! Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck, stopped him. \\\"I\\\"ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,\\\" said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss. Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. \\\"Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead,\\\" \\\" columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo. \\\"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year,\\\" \\\" Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. \\\"We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don\\\"t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it\\\"s not a trivial number.\\\" It is reported that more than 200,000 women use guns in the US for protections from rappers, robbers and thugs. Now the question is this: are we going to take that away from the bit by bit, bullet by bullet through restrictions and legislation after legislation? 6. Banning Guns Does Not Mean Criminals Won\\\"t Get Them \\\"If guns are outlawed only outlawed will have guns\\\" It is foolish to assume that any type of gun control proposition would mean criminals would turn their guns in or would not access guns. As a matter of fact they will more easily monopolize guns in a nation where guns were previously an individual right; gun sales and trafficking will most assuredly become easier only for criminals. Again, historical examples in banning drugs and alcohol point to this very fact. Simply look at the mess the \\\"War on Drugs\\\" has become in America. Gun control only means that the guns will be taken out of the hands of million law-abiding American, most of whom use them for protection, most of whom have never even shot a live target, never mind a human, and they go right into the hands of the criminals. While criminals will never turn their guns in, it is always the regular citizenry who will be left defenseless. For example Mexico imposes some of the most strictest gun control laws, yet over 50,000 people die in the hands of criminal on yearly basis. Another great example is the gun control laws introduced in Australia, which caused a massive spike in nearly every crime rate category. 5. Switzerland: A Low Crime, High Gun Ownership Modern Country The gun example of the country of Switzerland is so great and telling that we had to make it as a single point in our top 10 gun freedom list. The Swiss government not only does NOT impose any gun restrictions on their population but they literary demands that every household have a gun. And did you know that the Swiss government actually trains every adult on guns when they purchase a weapon. So how do crime rates fair in Switzerland? With all the guns available in the hands the Swiss people and based on the points above it should be an easy guess. Switzerland is the safest country in the modern world; one of the safest in the world. 4. Knives and Bats Kill More People: Guns are also Inanimate Objects It is yet another evidence against any gun control laws that bats, knives and other inanimate objects are the cause for the loss of many more lives than the use of guns. Therefore it is absolutely irrational to impose any type of gun control on the population. Statistically Americans are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a rifle. But that is besides the point that an inanimate object does not kill, it is a criminal that kills. \\\"To blame a gun for man\\\"s decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object.\\\" 3. Dangerous Psychiatric Drugs Not the Inanimate Guns In almost every shooting there has been another undeniable trend; every single one of the recent crazed shooters have been one some sort of psychiatric mind altering drugs promoted and sponsored by the corrupt media. This trend is most noticeable in the Aurora massacre, Colorado and Sandy Hook shooting. It is astonishing how the corporate media quickly points figures at the guns but not the crazed individuals who has been having his brained chewed by these dangerous drugs, which most TV stations proudly sponsor. Nearly every major school shooter has been on prescriptions drugs! 2. Governments Cannot Help the Victims Many still are under the delusion that if guns are confiscated government will protect them against criminals. Again, case after case historically we have witnessed that not to be true. When a government strips the regular citizenry from their right to defend themselves, they will almost always put innocents directly into the lion\\\"s den;- defenseless. Most 911 emergency calls are responded no quicker than 5 minutes. An insane criminal (on dangerous anti-represented and other mental drugs of course) in most cases will have finished his dirty act in less than a minute, or at least caused enough damage to make it an unfortunate tragedy. 1. Defense against a Tyrannical Government One of the greatest and most widely misunderstood facts about the Second Amendment is that some still tend to think that it was including for \\\"hunting\\\". The Second Amendment was NOT put in the Bill of Rights for hunting!; the Second Amendment gives the regular citizenry the right to defend themselves, against thugs and criminals but more importantly it was put firmly in place by the wise founding fathers to protect the people against the rise of any tyrannical government; whether a single dictator, a government tainted by lobbyists, a government directed by corporate interest of banks and financiers. It is important to realize that every tyrant in our recent history aimed to Recent history is filled with many chilling examples over and over again; where they take guns, state imposed tyranny brews shortly. Millions of innocent people have fall prey to their government, in the biggest cause of human lives called Democide. \\\"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \\\"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians under Turkish rule, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \\\"In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million innocent Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. \\\"In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated \\\"In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \\\"In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \\\"In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. \\\"Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Top 6 Quotes \\\" What did Tyrannical Dictators and Governments Have Said about Guns? \\\"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don\\\"t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?\\\" \\\" Joseph Stalin \\\" Russian Dictator \\\"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem\\\" \\\" Joseph Stalin \\\"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.\\\" \\\" Adolf Hitler \\\"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew\\\"s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in \\\"1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of \\\"1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.\\\" \\\" 1938 Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews\\\" Possession of Weapons) \\\"Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.\\\".\\\" - Mao \\\" Communist Chinese Dictator \\\"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future.\\\" \\\" Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag Top 10 Quotes \\\" What Did American Patriots Say about Guns and Liberty? 10. \\\"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.\\\" \\\" Patrick Henry\\\" Founding Father 9. \\\"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.\\\" \\\" Senator Hubert Humphrey 8. \\\"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property\\\" Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.\\\" - Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary) 7. \\\"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government\\\" \\\" Thomas Payne- (American Revolutionary) 6. \\\"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference \\\" they deserve a place of honor with all that\\\"s good.\\\" \\\" George Washington\\\" Founding Father and the 1st President of the United States) 5. \\\"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them\\\"\\\" \\\" Richard Henry Lee\\\" American Revolutionary who Led the American Declaration of Independence 4. \\\"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.\\\"- Thomas Jefferson\\\" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States) 3. \\\"And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms \\\".\\\"- Thomas Jefferson\\\" (Founding Father and 3rd President of the United States) 2. \\\"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them\\\"\\\" \\\" George Mason\\\" (Founding Father of the United States \\\" Most influential in institution of the Bill of Rights) 1. \\\"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take It.\\\" \\\"Thomas Jefferson\\\" (Founding Father and the 3rd President of the United States) The choice is clear here; It is FREEDOM or TYRANNY and disarmament is the first step towards tyranny \\\" a recipe for disarmament of the citizens and/or their future children. If the Americans to support the rest of their freedoms they have to stand by and protect their second amendment, even if you as an individual personally does not like guns or does not like to be around them. Sources: http://infowars.com... http://NaturalNews.com... http://fbi.gov...\",\n \"Gun Control\\nPlease forgive that my posts are not cleanly formatted. I am using my cell phone as my laptop is no longer functional. I will begin my argument by showing that American courts have repeatedly supported the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms. All of these cases should be viewed as an extension of the Second Amendment. The cases I am referring to are as follows: -Presser V. State of Illinois (1886) *1 \\\"But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.\\\" Miller V. United States (1939) *2 \\\"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a \\\"shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length\\\" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.\\\" While this case appears to be contrary to my side of the debate, I would like to highlight two portions of the case. 1.) The milita is defined as all males physically capable of acting for the common defense. As women are a significant portion of todays armed forces and allowed to serve in a combat role, a modern militia would imply virtually everyone. 2.) \\\"When called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.\\\" Thus supporting private civilian ownership of modern firearms. In regards to the aspect of the case regarding the legality of a sawn off shotgun, I wish to remind you that they are legal with the proper process and tax stamp as outlined in the gun control act of 1968. Heller V. District of Columbia (2008) *3 \\\"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.\\\" 2. \\\"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court\\\"s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller\\\"s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those \\\"in common use at the time\\\" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.\\\" Pp. 54\\\"\\\"56. -Peruta V. City of San Diego (2013) (posting a summary on this one as it does a good enough job explaining) *4 Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's concealed handgun laws. At issue was whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen had a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The court concluded that the right to bear arms included the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home and that carrying weapons for the lawful purpose of self defense was a central component of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment required that the state permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. The California scheme did not allow the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of such regulations, the court found their approaches unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because the County's \\\"good cause\\\" permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. On to a rebuttal. You stated that an AK-47 in a typical American household was excessive. Current estimates put the number of modern sporting rifles (semi-automatic, detachable box magazine) in America at somewhere around 30 million. Meaning that they currently are in fact typical in an American household. With the population at somewhere around 315 million, that is a MSR in one in every ten homes. Which is unquestionably \\\"in common use.\\\" According to FBI homicide statistics *5 from 2011, only 323 murders were committed using rifles in that year. For comparison, on average 77 people per year choke to death on hot dogs. By the numbers... an assault rifle is only 4x more likely to kill you than a hot dog. In regards to- \\\"A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied.\\\" I will not deny that there are those on BOTH sides who currently believe that is the case. I say on both sides due to the large number of liberals who are completely ignorant of past/current gun control legislation and believe fully automatic weapons are readily available for anyone at anytime. Which is just not the case. \\\"It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens.\\\" [2] \\\"Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount.\\\" It is exactly because not all Americans are law abiding that the right to keep and more importantly bear arms is an essential right. Studies continually find that citizens with permits to carry a concealed weapon are responsible for a disproportionately LOW amount of crime. In response to your statement that assault rifles should only be owned by law enforcement and military members, nearly half of the owners of MSR's are present or former military/LE. I would argue that just as congress shall enact no law that does not equally apply to them as it does to civilians; gun control should not restrict any firearm from a civilian while permitting a police officer have it. I believe the opposite holds true as well. Not really a point of rebuttal, but you are correct in saying that a self defense weapon should be a pistol and maybe a shotgun. This is due to the over penetration which would result from using a rifle caliber. Over penetration is also the reason nearly all self defense rounds are hollow points. I wouldn't choose a shotgun simply because I can't control where that shot will go. Then again, a shotgun does have the advantage that you probably won't have to shoot after you pump. In regard to your equations which are a vast oversimplification of a larger problem... I present to you an excerpt from a harvard study on that exact topic. *6 \\\"\\\"the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.\\\" In regards to your closing statement, specifically: \\\"the TEA Party members especially - claim they want to take their guns away. These misinterpretations of the facts must end.\\\" I wish to direct you to look into what is currently happening in New York and Connecticut. Basically that is exactly what is happening. In a display of patriotism and testicular fortitude, Connecticut MSR owners have overwhelmingly ignored the mandated registration. Leaving gun control proponents in an interesting situation... how do you respond when you've just turned potentially as many as 100k citizens into felons? Do you act with force against previously law abiding citizens? Locking them up is certainly not an option as it would cost more than the state earns annually. They are left with a choice between not enforcing it/repealing it or sending SWAT teams against a significant portion of their population. Which would most certainly do more harm than maintaining the status quo. To the gun owners of Connecticut- Stand strong. Molon Labe. *1 https://supreme.justia.com... *2 http://www.law.cornell.edu... *3 http://supreme.justia.com... *4 http://law.justia.com... *5 http://www.fbi.gov... *6 http://www.bostonmagazine.com...\",\n \"July Tournament\\nC1) SuicidesA) Gun StorageHarvard Injury Control Research Center analyzed a number of national random-digit dial telephone surveys and found that, “Many gun owners report storing their guns loaded and unlocked. Gun training is often associated with an increased likelihood of storing firearms in this manner.” And that, “Some 400 parents with firearms in the home responded to questions about firearms storage. Over 20% of parents had a loaded firearm and 8% stored at least one firearm loaded and unlocked. Households with teenagers were somewhat more likely to store firearms unsafely.”(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)In, “a national random telephone survey of 2,770 adults… of the 392 respondents who had at least one child and one firearm in the home, 22 percent had a loaded gun, 32 percent had an unlocked gun and 8 percent had a gun stored loaded and unlocked.”http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...“More than 1.6 million U.S. children live in homes with firearms that are stored loaded and unlocked. Because the guns used in youth suicides and unintentional injuries primarily come from victims’ homes, storage practices that allow for easy access to a firearm pose a threat to the safety of young people.”(http://archive.sph.harvard.edu...)Via the inability to store firearms properly; a teenager going through the extremely difficult time of adolescence has easy access to a weapon that they should not have. Whether that means that they bring it to school to show off to friends, to kill numerous classmates, or to kill themselves. Now while a substantial amount of teenagers wouldn’t take advantage of this easy access for harmful uses, the fact that any amount could is too many.This easy access to firearms poses many other problems as well. Anyone with a mental disability, or falsely identifying a friend/family as an intruder, or someone who is drunk, someone who is on drugs (not in their right mind), a marital fight, a toddler or young child mistaking it for a toy, etc. could all end in an unwanted death.This ease of access to firearms spawns more homicides, more suicides, more accidental shootings, and more deaths.B) Firearms & SuicideI.“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment…states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.” (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...) Owning a gun is a dangerous possession to have; you will actually be three times more likely to choose to commit suicide than someone who doesn’t own a gun. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)II.“In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death.”(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...)What we can draw from the evidence is two things:(1) Most suicides are done by firearms.(2) Suicide by firearm is the most lethal method as 85% end in death.Now while a ban on firearms will not decrease the amount of people that will commit suicide, it will save lives.Poison:For every successful suicide by poison, there are 42 attempted suicides by poison. That’s a 2.38% fatality rate.(http://lostallhope.com...)Cutting Wrists/Arms/Legs:A 6% fatality rate, for around every 17 attempts, only 1 succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Overdose on Drugs:A 12.3% fatality rate, for every 8 attempts, only one succeeds.(http://lostallhope.com...)Hanging:75% fatality rate, for every 4 attempts, 3 succeed.(http://www.medscape.com...)If someone fails to commit suicide, they are rushed to a hospital where they are treated for their injuries. Then they are taken to get treatment to help their depression, this treatment works 80-90% of the time and the victim does not commit suicide again.(http://www.save.org...)“Most suicide attempts do not result in death. Many of these attempts are done in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts are often a cry for help.\\\"(http://www.nlm.nih.gov...)Many people who commit suicide don’t actually want to die; they just want help with their problem. Having a suicide attempt less likely to be successful gives the victim the opportunity to seek help, fix their problem, and save their life. A ban on guns fixes this issue.C2) Firearm Accidents\\\"In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings…American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds…”(http://www.thedailybeast.com...)Firearms are extremely deadly weapons; therefore extreme caution and responsibility are necessary when handling them. Despite the aggressive training required to get a license;“Take a 14-hour course (8 hours classroom, 6 hours range) in the carrying and use of firearms given by a Bureau- certified firearms training instructor at a Bureau certified training facility… Pass the written and range exams given at the end of the course”(http://www.bsis.ca.gov...)This goes to show that despite intensive training measures, gun accidents still occur.Firearm accidents are also much more likely to occur than other harmful accidents. For example, poison containers come with lids that are generally more difficult to remove and knives require very solid pressure in certain areas on the body to be fatal, all a gun requires is a pull of the trigger.Gun accidents are the worst kind of death; they are senseless, completely devoid of purpose. They leave the person who committed the act with a terrible sense of guilt that stays with them for the rest of their life.With gun accidents sending 200 people to the emergency room every day, and thousands of people with gunshot wounds every year, we have to realize that guns are not worth the risk.C3) HomicideA)“Handgun purchase was more common among persons dying from… or homicide (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.7), and particularly among those dying from… or gun homicide (OR 3.3; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.3), than among controls. No such differences were seen for non-gun suicide or homicide… Handgun purchasers accounted for less than 1% of the study population but 2.4% of gun homicides, 14.2% of gun suicides, and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths.”The study concluded that; “Among adults who died in California in 1998, those dying from violence were more likely than those dying from non-injury causes to have purchased a handgun…legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death”(http://injuryprevention.bmj.com...)Evidence shows that the act of purchasing a handgun significantly increases your chances of a violent death. These statistics match what you would expect from a society where guns are legal. If someone is wielding a gun against an attacker who just wants to steal some items from their home, they are placing both themselves and the attacker at greater risk of death in the process.B)“Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention.”(http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)Of the 12, 765 murders in 2012; 8,855 of them were performed with guns. That’s 69.4% of all murders performed with a firearm.(http://www.infoplease.com...)If guns are banned, a murderer will have to use some other type of weapon that is less effective than a gun would be. A ban on guns would lower the effectiveness of murders and save the lives of murder victims.Conclusion:The United States should enact a nation-wide ban on all firearms to; reduce suicide rates, reduce deaths from accidents, and reduce homicide rates.\",\n \"Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.\\nTo start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have \\\"unrestricted carry\\\" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's \\\"right of the people to keep and bear arms,\\\" and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...\",\n \"Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.\\nThe right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that \\\"bearing\\\" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.\",\n \"Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws\\nOne can reveal a concealed gun in order to deter a criminal.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.","Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry is better when more people are around.","Private ownership of a gun in the US should be illegal for every citizen. Round 1Lack of reasonThere is no reason why a citizen of the US should require a gun for personal use. There may be a reason for a Police Officer, when properly trained, to require a gun. However, the Police Officers ownership should not be private (i.e. he should not have one in his home), he should only be able to pick one up whilst at work and then have to return it again when he leaves. People do not 'need' guns to protect themselves from the possibility of a tyrannical government as that is something that simply would not happen in the US.A country is safer without gunsLet's take a look at this graph: It's interesting to note that in the UK, where gun laws are a lot more restrictive, gun homicides per 100,000 are a HELL of a lot lower than in the US. As, in fact, are non-gun homicides, therefore proving that less guns does not mean more murders.Ok, you may think, why not just ban automatics but let people have handguns? This is why: Here, again, we see that, in general, the more handguns are owned per 100,000 the more handgun-related deaths there are per 100,000. Israel is an anomaly, but that is purely because a vast majority of Israel citizens are involved somehow with the military. This shows that stopping US citizens, who do not NEED guns at all, from buying any kind of gun, handgun or otherwise, could only be a positive thing.The second amendmentAmerican's tend to get very uppity about how gun laws breach the second amendment. However, in the case of Cruikshank V. the United States in 1876, the Supreme Court of the US ruled that the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. Later on, in 1939, the supreme court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Thus, the second amendment is not breached by any kind of gun laws, including the complete illegalization of their ownership. It is the right of an American citizen to be kept safe, which they will be if they are not allowed to own a gun, for their own good.","U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. Now, I will tell you my arguments. I as the opposition team oppose to the resolution because if U. S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too. For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country? !) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute. Of course they will get punished, but it would be too late for you. Although it can be good since you can protect your selves if you have one, it can be used as a purpose of Assassin. If Americans keep on legalizing the carriage of guns, more and more incidents like those above will happen. It is never too late, so they should illegalize U. S. citizens carrying guns.","Gun rights I'm so sorry con but your whole argument in round 2 is false as per you failed to cite any sources.My good friend a teacher would never have a gun on school grounds in the first place- this is only a privilege for principals. Teachers guns would be easily obtainable by children causing a risk. According to http://www.ijreview.com...:USA is 24th in murder rate of countries so we need to arm our citizens. Also John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes say “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” USA's Murder rate has decreased over %65 since 1973 in stride with many state's gaining gun rights.John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime. says: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)There is a direct relationship that the more citizens have guns, the less the murder rate.Let's save our children and generation and give the the people of this world guns to protect themselves!","Firearms shouldn't be regulated any further, and CCW location bans should be lifted. Obviously due to the recent Newtown shooting there has been a spike in talks of the second amendment and if it should be altered. When I hear these bickering politicians it annoys me because the decision seems obvious. I believe very strongly that high-powered rifles and semi-auto firearms should not be illegalized just because of one incident. I also think that if 26 adults were gunned down in an office building, that no one would notice. Finally I think that a quick and easy way to solve the problem of these mass-murders is to lift the bans on where you can bring your concealed weapons. I don't just mean in schools too, I mean everywhere, malls, theaters, work, anywhere that some wacko could come in and lights out a handful of people. If you have an armed apponent, or even a few, your chances of taking these people down goes down. I'm sure that there are many teachers, retail workers, and workers that have their CCW's that would be glad to save thirty people by sending a lead chunk hurdling into some punks skull. I respect any opponent that whishes to battle me in this argument of rights.","Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Well, I understand everything that you're saying, and it makes sense. I just don't think that allowing more concealed weapons by non-professionals in colleges is the solution. There is definitely a problem with the fact that pointless violence is occurring at campuses, but I believe there's only been about 9 campus shootings in the past 40 years. Every life counts, but I don't think the situation is so severe that concealed weapons should be allowed on colleges. I agree that a vast majority of CC permit holders will be acting defensively and responsibly with their weapon, but there is just too much room for more problems when guns are allowed legally. This whole CC permit business makes guns more available anyways, because people are able to legally buy and sell the guns and carry them. This makes it easier for potential criminals to get a hold of a gun. I know that they could get a hold of one anyways, but the fact that it is easier when there are more guns going around means that someone that may not have gone through the trouble if guns were really rare may be able to obtain one easily and use it. I think there are other solutions that could work alternatively to the CC permit. There could be increased security, so that if a student starts shooting then there will be a trained, professional security guard nearby. Also, there could be metal detectors/x rays or some other precaution before students are able to enter the campus.","ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Firstly, I would like to first start by refuting my opponent's responses. Firstly, handguns are the most successful weapon of defense according to criminologist brief 23, therefore, to use a knife would not do to help if a burglar were to say invade with a rifle. Also a rifle is required to be held with both hands, so any chance of actually capturing a robber would be mythical. I would also like to add that only 0.1 percent to of robbers were actually scared off with rifles, according to the violence policy center. My opponent said that we have access to rifles and shotguns therefore we are not violating the second amendment. But to take even one of the options for self defense our citizens have a right to is unlawful, according to the Supreme Court. It is logical to state that the Supreme Court is more reliable than my opponent. He also said that criminals have access to legal guns more than illegal guns, but my counterplan will also prohibit criminals from getting guns while still maintaining the liberties of the American citizens. This solves better for the value, which he failed to apply his arguments to and thus has conceited to my evaluation statements, which he dropped as well. Thank you, and this is why I have already won this debate.","There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms 1: all \"small arms\", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....","Right to carry arms As my opponent forfeited the previous round, the final round of debate, it is my job to formally end this debate. Since this is the final speech of the round, I would like to condense all the issues in this debate into two central questions. 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? On Side Con, I proudly believe the answer to both questions is NO; Side Con has a clear COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE on both of these issues. With that in mind, let\"s examine the first question: 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? As my opponent brought up in his first speech, \"Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed.\" The logic is simple: \"if anyone could have a gun, then I shouldn\"t attack anyone for fear he/she might pull a gun on me.\" The Instigator then defended this point with studies from Dr. John Lott. Yet, as we saw in my previous two speeches, my opponent\"s logic does not hold up. First and foremost, Dr. John Lott\"s studies have been found invalid due to a lack of statistical significance. The findings he had could have just as easily arisen from pure luck due to a large number of confounding variables in his study. The controversy behind the funding of his research is only a cherry on top. Furthermore, my opponent did not adequately respond to arguments put forth in the 1st and 2nd Con speech: openly shown firearms are a far more effective deterrent. Once again, whom would you rather rob? The old lady who might have a gun or the old lady who has a gun? The answer is clear. My opponent also ignores the psychological elements of crime, such as criminal desperation and drug addiction. Many won\"t make the logical leaps my opponent assumes they will. The conclusion is simple. In a shall-issue law world, there will still be muggings, rapes, and murders. There are better, safer alternatives to this scenario my opponent failed to refute. With this in mind, we can safely say the answer to this first question is NO, favoring Side Con. 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? There has been a slight back-and-forth over this issue over the course of debate. Yet, looking over the previous two speeches, Con definitively emerged triumphant. The comparisons Side Pro made in Round 2 between the VPC and David Burnett were not \"apples-to-apples\" comparisons, as noted in Side Con\"s Round 2 speech. To this day, individuals with legal concealed weapons permits kill citizens across the country. Such records are often incomplete, as not all crimes are reported. People such as Philip Davis have no chance to flee, giving the ease of use of a concealed handgun. My opponent claims \"citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them.\" While, ideally, neither the criminal nor the average citizen should have a gun in the first place, a concealed weapons permit makes it far easier to kill a person with malicious intent than to defend oneself from an attacker. As discussed in Con\"s Round 1 speech, the most common concealed handguns, namely the 9mm, are horrendous for self-defense. While they are rapid fire, the stopping power is minimal, especially when put in the hands of an untrained marksman. A criminal, on the other hand, is more likely to use the handgun as a threat, holding someone up for valuables. Or, if murder is the design, the criminal is far more likely to have practiced using the gun than the everyday citizen. These handguns are far more practical as murder weapons than self-defense. This point was not questioned at ALL by Side Pro. Side Pro also failed to properly refute Con\"s second contention: convicted felons do regain their gun rights, and do kill again. In Washington ALONE, 429 felons have engaged in crime after regaining their gun rights, using their weapons as either leverage or as murder weapons. Even if denying these people of their gun rights would prevent practically the population of Nebraska from owning concealed handguns, this is still a step towards the safety of the American citizenry. If we look at the deaths and the nature of concealed firearms, we overwhelmingly find the answer to the second question is NO. Thus, who has the comparative advantage? Side Con. Side Pro may like the theory behind \"shall-issue\" laws, but, in practice, these laws have not markedly improved pubic safety. If anything, they make our world LESS safe. As Side Con has repeatedly shown you, voters, concealed firearms should be illegal for US private citizens. So, for the good of restricting gun proliferation, vote Con. For the safety of the American people, vote Con. For the family of Philip Davis, vote Con. Thank you.","USA should have more gun restrictions Ladies and Gentlemen, I am TheBunnyAssassin. In this debate, I will be negating the topic \"USA should have more restrictions\". Contention 1: Fear Fear is one factor that supports gun users. In states such as Texas, where citizen are allowed to carry guns in a way known as \"concealed carry\", there is relatively less crime related to firearms. Why? The reason for this is because no criminal armed with a firearm would be paranoid enough to attempt to kill citizens who have a high chance of owning a firearm. Imagine as a criminal rushes into a mall with a little pistol and assault rifle in Texas. The moment he pulls out his gun, about 10-12 men pull out their pistols, which are pointed at him (or already discharged at the criminal). Here is a poll from prisons all over the United States: Have you ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No: 66%, Yes: 34% Was there ever a time in your life when you decided not to do a crime because you knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun? No, never: 61%, Yes: 49% [H]ave any of the criminals you have known personally ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No, none: 31%, Yes: 69% As we can see above, there has been a good amount of criminals who abstained from crime or got wounded due to their armed victim. We can conclude that fear caused by these victims may cause criminals to think twice about raiding one home. Contention 2: Irony My opponent argues for his affirmative side, therefore, we can conclude that he wishes firearms to be abolished. Let me arrange a situation which would occur immediately once firearms are banned or restricted in the United States. When guns are prohibited, the government will order every single citizen to turn in their firearm. I will ask every viewer this question. Do you think that the criminals in the United States will turn in their firearms? Their illegal guns? The ones obtained from their black markets? Does everybody believe that when the gun restriction law is passed, the common criminal who has taken countless lives with his gun will walk to the police station, and say, \"Here, take my AR-15 and AK-47 which I got from Russia! I will follow the government standards because I am a good citizen!\" Obviously not. In addition, when the citizen's firearms are taken away, they will be left defenseless against the marauding criminals who now know that citizen's guns have been taken away. This is why there is a quote about how people \"don't bring a knife to a gun fight\". How does a United States citizen defend his home when he gets shot the moment, he raises his melee weapon against a thug? By the time the police even get halfway to the home, the man who tried to defend his family is dead, shot because he couldn't even intimidate the intruder. This is one of the greatest ironies of the gun control debate. By taking away firearms from citizens, the government might as well threw them out for slaughter. Taking away firearms does not reduce death. It increases it. Thank you for viewing my arguments, TheBunnyAssassin The next round is rebuttal. Source(s): -[117] Michigan Law Section 28.422: \"License to purchase, carry, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications....\" Accessed September 2, 2010 at http://law.justia.com... -Report: \"2008 Crime in the United States, Murder.\" Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www2.fbi.gov... -The calculations that determine this fact were performed by a licensed actuary using two different methodologies, both of which yield the same answer. An Excel file containing these calculations is available upon request.","New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate Thanks JMRTC = Right to Carry ARGUMENTS1) Increases risk and fearThe individual right to carry guns does not make people feel safe. A study done by Harvard shows that 59% of American citizens felt less safe if more people in their community were allowed to carry guns, 24% felt the same, and only 12% felt more safe [1]. About 90% thought that citizens should not be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, bars, and college campuses [1]. It can be seen that people don't feel safer but are more worried about who might have a gun when they are sitting in a bar, or going to college. Their fears are not unfounded. Incidents like the highly publicized Virginia Tech massacre have been occuring every few years since 1990 [2]. More guns floating in society not only increases risk to individuals, but also increases their fear making us a more fearful society overall. Suicide attempts are impulsive. From a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of people who attempted suicide took less than 5 min from the decision to kill themsleves from the actual attempt while 70% took less than an hour [10]. The easy access to guns makes them highly dangerous. If guns weren't available, people will have more time to rethink. 2) Criminals obtain guns easilyPro says that criminals will break the law to get a gun. Let's consider how criminals get their guns: 46% of criminals in the US get them through a process known as \"straw purchasing\" [3]. The process is simple. A convict gets someone else to buy a gun for him [3]. It is difficult, almost impossible to catch. The criminal's friend or family member will simply buy a gun and give it to him. That is a disadvantage of the right to carry (RTC): people can buy guns for others by bending the law. Without an RTC, people who can legally buy guns cannot just buy a gun and pass it onto their friend who will then use it to commit a crime. 3) Increased domestic violence Pro says that there are training programs that help people use guns safely. But are they mandatory? Would everyone in the house have had the training? It is more likely that a gun kept in the house would fall into the hands of an untrained person who would either accidentally shoot their own family, or from whom the burglar can immediately snatch the gun away. 30% of victims were murdered by people known to the victim, 13% by family members, and only 12% by strangers [4]. This shows that it is over 3 times more likely for a victim to be murdered by someone they know and has access to their house. So the harmss of having a gun in the house outweigh the benefits of a small possibility that it could be used defensively against an intruder. A study conducted by UCLA involving over 9000 subjects concluded that having a gun at home is a risk for adults to be shot fatally or commit suicide with a firearm at a ratio of 1.41 [7]. This means a gun at home makes you about 41% more likely to be a victim of homicide or suicide. A separate study conducted by the University of Tennessee, Memphis concludes that \"rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance\" [8]. REBUTTALS1) Self Defense from PolicePro says \"anything is possible.\" The question is: Is it likely? Likelihood is more important that possiblity when doing a comparison of benefits and harms. Pro also says that cops might abuse their power. Pointing a gun at them isn't going to help. The solution is to call 911, get other cops at the scene. It is far less likely that the entire department is corrupt. Cops are much better trained than the average citizen to use their guns so actually shooting a cop is out of the question. If Pro only advocates waving the gun at the corrupt cop hoping he will go away, the suspect will be taken into custody for pointing a firearm at a cop. This is absolutely not a benefit of the RTC as Pro tries to argue. If anything, it is a disadvantage. 2) Self Defense from Criminals(A) 534,000 cases of self-defense? That is 0.001% of the US population. Quite small. Guns are not likely to be successfully used for self-defense. The American Journal of Public Health conducted a study in Philadelphia and concluded that on average, guns did not protect their owners from assualt [6]. This is because attacks are often surprise attacks and the victim has no time to draw his weapon. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise avoidable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Gun owners also increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them [6]. The study concluded that a person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault than one without a gun [6]. (B) Police protectionPro says that police can't guarantee the safety of citizens. But as I have shown, neither can guns.Warren v DC only stated that police had no special responsibility to protect any individual. It upheld that police did have a responsibility to protect the public at large. The ruling was in response to a victim suing the police for not checking the backdoor of the house even though the police had arrived at the front door. Instead of suing the police on a small technicality, the victims should have helped prosecute the criminals. The average police response time was 8 minutes in 1995 [9]. This is steadily decreasing [9]. It is better to wait for the police rather than use a gun and get shot in the process. 3) Crime DeterrentPro says that people feel safer. This isn't true. 59% of people felt less safe with more guns in the community, only 12% felt more safe. Pro's argument relies on the assertion that once criminals know that a person is armed, they are more likely to retreat. However, the criminal is just as likely to shoot the person if they think that they will be shot. Pro relies on the assumption that gun users are safe, responsible people with good training on how to use a gun. There is no way to guarantee this. Pro cites John Lott to say that crime decreases with right to carry. I don't have John Lott's book but I have evidence showing that Lott used fraudulent data. The Washigton Monthly reports that Lott produced a statistical model \"Model 1\", that showed that significant crime decreases when guns were banned. Errors were discovered in Lott's work. Lott admitted the errors and posted a new table with new results. However, his new results were similar to his old ones [12]. This was bcause, since Lott had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model (\"Model 2\") for use in this new table without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact [12]. Lott then quitely removed the old model from his website and put the new model in. He used the new model with the old data as well as the new data to make it seem like he used the new model all along [12]. Lott also misrepresented the findings of the FBI [13]. John Lott has been discredited, he was caught using falsified data. RTC does not decrease crime.A study published in the Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research shows that RTC actually increases instances of aggravated assault [11]. 4) Sport Pro says shooting sports are safe. I disagree and negated his stats. He still asserts that shooting sports are safe with no new evidence. Shooting sports are not only dangerous, but what does it even matter whether or not they are safe? By itself, it is not a real benefit of the individual RTC. People could do target practice with replica guns and bullets. Just the fact that people want to play with real guns is no reason to allow people to carry guns while at home or in the community. Sources http://bit.ly...","Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, \"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the \"supreme law of the land.\"","Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: • The holder being at least 21 years of age • No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years • No domestic violence conviction • Being a legal citizen of the United States • Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) • Not delinquent in child support payments • Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun • Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them • Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.","US citizens should have the right to bear arms The motion is that US citizens should have the right to bear arms. Pro shall support the motion and give evidence whilst con shall oppose the motion.","America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia. I believe all citizens (who can legally own a firearm) should be required to own a firearm. I believe every citizen should be able of carry a handgun (with current chcl restrictions) without a permit. I believe all citizens between ages 20 and 50 should be required to train in a militaristic capacity (physical fit tests, fire arms qualifications, etc) and required to participate in atleast one firearm training/competition per month to keep skills sharp. The citizen militia should not be deployable like the armed service, but required to function like the national guard in times of need and tragedy.","gun control is worthless I do not hold all of these views personally. I am defending them for the sake of debate.I will not support the outlawing or banning of all guns, although I will defend the argument that certain particularly dangerous weapons (bombs for instance) do not belong in civilian hands. I am making the argument that certain gun control measures are not worthless – to the contrary, they are essential for a safe nation. 1. It disarms those who might be able to stop an attackerThe gun control measures which I am defending limit access to guns in four ways: (1) gun ownership is only legal if you have a gun license without which it is illegal to purchase or carry a gun, (2) people with a history of criminality or mental instability will be unable to obtain a license, (3) it should be illegal to carry concealed guns in public, and (4) there should be a minimum age for being allowed to obtain a license. Homicidal attackers are likely to be violent and/or mentally unstable. Normal civilians who might use guns to defend themselves are less likely to have a criminal history. As such, the gun control measures I'm making a case for won't change the access generally non-violent and sane civilians have to guns, except if they are not adults. However, it would make it a whole lot harder for proven criminals or the mentally unstable to get their hands on a violent weapon.2. Shooters are going to get guns anywayThat's like saying we shouldn't have laws against rape, murder, fraud or speeding because people are going to do it anyway. Sure, people break the law all the time, I won't argue that. However, we need the laws for several reasons. Firstly, to protect everyone's rights as guaranteed in the Constitution; secondly, to make it possible for law enforcement officials to prevent crime; thirdly, to allow the justice system to punish criminals. Without the gun restriction measures I'm endorsing, a convicted murderer on parole could walk right into the middle of a mall brandishing an assault rifle, and at no point would the police have the power to detain him or force him to relinquish his weapon. This is dangerous. Finally, gun control laws will make it far harder for likely shooters (i.e. the violent, criminal and mentally unstable) to acquire guns. That alone is a worthy reason to seriously consider passing, or keeping, such laws.3. Slippery slopeIf we go after guns, what else will the government take from us? Cars? Detergent? Kitchen knives? This slippery slope argument comes up all the time, but it's wildly silly for two reasons. Firstly: we're debating gun *control*, remember? Cars kill more than guns do – this is why we have licenses for cars, and a minimum age for driving, and a training period, and your license gets suspended if you use your car illegally or destructively. The other two aforementioned instruments are not as deadly as guns, so these sorts of restrictions are not necessarily as productive as they are regressive. I don't support knife licenses. Secondly, and far more importantly, all of the non-gun examples share one trait that guns lack: they are not purely weapons. Their function is not exclusively destructive. As such, appropriate regulation measures between the two groups are in no way comparable. Cars, detergent and kitchen knives all share important alternative roles in the average lifestyle. Cars are highly vital for efficient transport, especially in big cities or across large distances. Detergent is used to clean the home. Knives are used as cooking utensils and other types of knives are used in art, construction and eating. However, guns are used *exclusively* to kill people; furthermore, that is their *primary* purpose. So it's actually ridiculous how many restrictions we have on cars in, say, America, while there are virtually no restrictions on guns.Now I will briefly make a case for some of my skeleton arguments.5. Gun ownership should only be legal if you have a gun license, without which it is illegal to purchase or carry a gun. If we have car licenses, we should have gun licenses. It's as simple as that. If you would like to revoke gun licenses, please revoke car licenses and see where that gets your country.6. People with a history of criminality or mental instability should be unable to obtain a license. The power to kill should not be given to people who are proven to be violent, law-breaking, sadistic or irrational. Shops which sell guns should have the right to demand a psychiatric evaluation of any customer. Again, we are not talking about an instrument with mainly positive and constructive uses, and certain alternative abuses; we are talking about the exclusively destructive function of killing.7. It should be illegal to carry concealed guns in public.If you are not a criminal, why would you be worried that revealing your gun will alert others to your gun ownership? You may be more likely to be stopped briefly by the police, but this is for sensible safety reasons. You are less likely to be attacked. However, there is really no good reason to disguise your gun illegally unless for criminal purposes. This will make it far easier for law enforcement to apprehend shooters before they act.8. There should be a minimum age for being allowed to obtain a license.There is a minimum age for drinking and receiving a car license. If for no other reason, there should be a minimum age restriction in order to protect children from themselves. A policeman could not stop a five-year-old from carrying, handling or using a gun without such regulations in place. This would endanger not only people and property surrounding the five-year-old, whose motor and cognitive skills are far from fully developed, it would also seriously endanger the child. For these reasons we restrict drinking and driving age. Until you are at least 15, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of driving. Until you are at least 18, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of voting. Until you are at least 21, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of drinking alcohol. When can a person shoulder the responsibility of having the power to kill dozens of human beings within minutes?Gun restrictions are not worthless. Some have useful applications. (Note that I do not need to prove that their benefits outweigh their detriments in order to win the debate – only that they have benefits in the first place.) Please vote for Ithacus / Con if you feel that I have accurately and persuasively defended that position. Thank you.","Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. All right I'll start small with hopes my opponent won't forfeit next round. 1. Carriers should be required to obtain a permit to show basic levels of competence with their firearm of choice. 2. Lack of permits would make it time-consuming for LEOs to distinguish lawful citizens from felons. It takes seconds to show a permit.","School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms I am fairly new to this site, i am not quite sure if i picked the right side so read this first, i believe teachers and/or students should be allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.","Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals \"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either \"often\" or \"regularly\" worried that they \"[m]ight get shot at by the victim\"; and 57% agreed with the statement, \"Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.\" James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].\" --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. \"A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), \"More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.\" That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, \"more than 240,000.\" So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes \"represents a small percentage of those with permits.\" More like \"tiny.\" By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit.\" http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...","Gun control should be limited to age and only non-rocket weapons should be allowed. \"Why did anyone decide to control guns, it is only metal, and not control knives, screwdrivers, cars, etc. (answer this first)\" Because A) Guns are usually more destructive than knives and screwdrivers. You can kill someone with a knife or a screwdriver, but guns are generally more effective. B) People are more afraid of guns than cars. This has nothing to do with the lethality of either, by rather, the perception of \"scary\" guns are and how \"not scary\" cars are, despite cars killing a few thousand more people each year.[1] C) An argument made for gun control that if you make guns illegal or heavily restricted, then gun crime will decrease. \"Guns have been demonized and all a gun is is metal.\" And usually plastic these days, and sometimes more exotic materials. More to the point, it's a \"piece of metal\" that can be used to kill people with greater efficiency than pieces of metal that aren't guns. \"People kill, not guns\" While it may be technically true in the sense that a gun cannot act independently, a person with a gun is demonstrably more dangerous than an unarmed person. \"I believe that if a person is over 18,\"\"If it is limited only to age,\" There are legitimate reasons why a minor could arm themselves: target shooting, hunting, self defense, and practice for all of the above. \"he or she should be able to buy any gun\" Define \"any gun\". Are you including gyrojets and air rifles? \"carry it anywhere\" There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to restrict where one could carry guns. A politician making a controversial speech might rather not be shot at. An explosives storage facility might not want to risk a negligent discharge setting off an explosion. One might not want a murderous, psychotic ex sneaking into your house armed[2]. I do think that the carry laws as they are in the US in some places in some circumstances are too restrictive- but allowing people to carry guns literally anywhere is not a reasonable solution. [1] http://1.usa.gov... [2] http://bit.ly...","Is strengthening gun control laws necessay More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don\"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun. Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.","Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School I think that teachers should be able to carry concealed guns at school but not have them loaded. In the case of a actual emergency the teacher then can load the gun for protection . Right after the event they MUST unload it.","I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind I believe in the right to protect myself through concealed-carry and to protect against a tyrannical government. NO FORFEITS PLEASE!","I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind I believe in concealed-carry in public, And the right to protect myself against intruders and a tyrannical government. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.","Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Firstly, I don't understand how the campuses of America will be safer if any student with a CC permit is able to walk around with concealed weapons. Being a student myself, it would make me very uneasy to know that anybody walking around me might have a concealed firearm, even if they are supposedly \"smart, responsible people.\" Also, when guns become involved, it is rarely an issue of \"one clean shot to the head.\" If there are a bunch of students carrying guns, and someone comes in with their own weapon intending to shoot people, do you think that one of the students is just going to say \"don't worry, I'll handle this\" and get a clean shot in the assailant's head? I think the reality of the situation would be that there would be a period of chaos when all of the concealed weapon holders take those weapons out and start firing. There is even high probability that bullets will miss their targets and innocent people will get injured or killed. Also, I'm sure that in the past many CC permit holders, not in schools but in other places, have actually been the crazy criminals who take out those concealed weapons and start firing on people. Schools are places of books, not guns. There are thousands of colleges throughout the United States, and the number of campuses where shootings happen is relatively tiny. If students anywhere with a CC permit are allowed to take guns to school, the number of shooting will go up because fighting fire with fire does not work. Giving people more opportunities to use weapons has never been, and never will be, a solution to violence. Lastly, using our \"right to bear arms\" is a really poor argument for allowing arms in schools. Do you really think when our founding fathers made the \"right to bear arms\" they were thinking of it pertaining to schools? I really don't think so. I think that right was created mainly because of the need for a militia, which means that the citizens needed to have guns on hand in case they were called to fight the British, French, Spanish, Native Americans, or whoever. Clearly, there are no more militias in the United States, and even if there were it would have nothing to do with schools. Allowing guns in schools will not reduce crime, that just doesn't make sense. Schools should continue to be Gun-Free Zones.","Reciprocity of conceal carry permits. The requirements for CCW regulations within each individual jurisdiction should not be as complex . The implementation of Reciprocity legislation should standardize the requirements once and for all . Currently many states don't even grant you the bureaucratic mechanism for applying for a CCW if you're from a different state . Our Constitution grants us the Right to bear arms and the right for Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.\"... If individuals have the right to bear arms and free to move from and about . Doesn't local gun control laws hinders that freedom ? . My stance with the establishment of Reciprocity of CCW permits among states would be to resolve the issues created by leftist chauvinist authoritarian infiltrated in law enforcement agencies and draconian zealots in the Judicial system prosecuting law abiding citizens moving from and about while legally in possession of a fire arm . Far apart from what the anti gun movement would like to lead you to believe . Legal gun owners are the most law abiding citizens this country haves .","States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, \"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.\" Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.","Gun Free Zone on College Campus I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think \"everybody\" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.","Concealed carry laws decrease crime definitions: Conceal carry: Being allowed to carry a weapon hidden. \"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Requirements for the permit: \"is at least 21 years of age; � is a resident of the state; � provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check; � has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; � is not a fugitive from justice; � is not an illegal alien; � is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; � has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution; � has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services; � is not subject to a restraining or protection order; � has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; � is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more thanone year imprisonment; � has completed a firearms safety or training course; and � pays a licensing fee.\" [1] __________ Round 1 acceptance clarifications and definitions. Good luck [1] Snyder, Jeffery R. \"Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun.\" CATO, 22 Oct. 1997","U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. I will first go to my own case and then to my opponent's case. Contention 1: Carrying weapons freely is already legal in the U.S. 1st of all, I will state that \"U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns\" because it is a protected right in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.\" Thus, U.S. citizens are already allowed to carry weapons freely. Rebuttal: \"because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too\" Um, any examples or sources? U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns now and at least 34th in intentional homicide rate by country per 100,000 people. Thus, the U.S.A. has already proven that carrying guns in not as threatening as thought. \"For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. \" Sources? I don't know when or if this happened but just because someone has stress doesn't mean they will shoot someone. Many people have lots of stress and they are not inclined to shoot everyone. This is an extreme case of being over-stressed while having guns. \" What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute.\" No, they can't. We have so much security these days that there are very few guns besides in the few crime-popular cities such as Lose Angeles, Oakland, etc. Thus, guns should remain legal. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...","In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.","Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Mental patients don't have gun rights, end of story, that is too extreme, mon cher, and I am a moderate Republican saying this.","Americans have a right to own firearms Many states have made laws to allow people to defend their property from those that would attempt to steal it such as the case in Texas. Why should we allow someone to hijack our car when we could be the ones to scare them off? To put it in better perspective for you, what if a large man tried kidnapping a young woman (21 years old) are you suggesting that she should not have the right to own a firearm to defend her life? She doesn't know if hes going to kill her and you make the assumption that a carjacker would not try to kill or kidnap either. \"you allow him and call the police because that is their work\" You stated it perfectly, the police are rarely there when a crime is taking place, they almost always show up after the crime is committed. Imagine if all the women that were brutally raped and murdered had a firearm to defend themselves. There would be far less kidnappings. Americans\" is a general term used to describe people. I had assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to people legally old enough to own a firearm. If someone breaks into your house with your children sleeping are you going to ask the person if he will let you call the cops? Or would you rather have a firearm to fend him off? By choosing not to defend yourself you give the power to the criminal. Those that abide the law should not have to fear criminals, it is the criminals that should fear empowered law abiding citizens.","Conceal carry laws by private citizens \" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking \"oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon\" Really? I'm not so sure.. \" It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.","Gun Control By my opponent's own admission in the comments, they are advocating for no gun control/regulation whatsoever. This is lunacy. No background checks, for example, would mean a known criminal could walk into a store and buy a gun. No limitations on types of arms available to civilians means someone could buy a heavy machine gun or grenade launcher. No requirements to go through an open or concealed carry safety class means people could just carry guns around without having to demonstrate competence with them. This would be no different than letting people drive cars without passing a driving test. The list could go on, but I'll stop here for now and see how Con responds.","I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Conceal-Carry is already legal in some places. Mentally ill people probably would not be able to pass a background check. There has been no increase of violent crime. Since 1990, As concealed-carry goes up by tens of thousands per year, Violent crime has gone down 50%. This includes murders and rapes. 90% of cases criminals get their guns illegally, Probably through a friend or the black market.","Conceal carry laws by private citizens No not really my point is quite simple....whatever the law regarding concealment an officer can and is likely to continue to use the same old excuses. Your angle is confusing, it appears as though you accept that unlawful police killings occur but you feel that the excuses they use are passable because people are allowed to carry concealed guns. I'm sorry but as you are aware guns are easy to come bye...right? Then why would the police feel more comfortable if people are not allowed to conceal them. Don't you think that the officer may still feel a bit anxious that someone is not actually abiding to the rules. Come on drop me out!","Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!","Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: \"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. \" By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated \"with correct instruction\", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) \"As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. \" Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.","CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities Pro said: \"Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns.\"This is a concession. If it's fine for a university to ban guns, then that directly contradicts the resolution that CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges/universities.The only exception Pro admits is when there is \"an imminent threat\". I will discuss this exception further below.Pro said: \"I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW.\"It's not okay to change the resolution of a debate halfway through. This debate is not only about state bans, but about whether CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges and universities, which includes all the laws and regulations in relation to that.An imminent threatPro has conceded that it's fine for guns to be banned on college and university campuses when there is no imminent threat. However, I suggest that when there IS an imminent threat to the safety of staff and students, it would be far better for security to be maintained by trained law-enforcement professionals.Further, I suggest that when there is an imminent threat to safety, that students and staff should stay away from campus until it is resolved. 2nd amendmentThe 2nd amendment is not an unconditional right. Prisoners, the mentally ill, children, etc., are not allowed to carry guns and there are restictions on the types of weapons people are allowed to own (1). Furthermore, most states have restrictions on taking weapons to places such as daycare centres, schools, hospitals and government offices (2).As was pointed out in United States vs Miller, the 2nd amenment only guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms only in \"any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\". (1)Therefore, exceptions to the right to bear arms are consistent with the 2nd amendment. Pro has conceded this point already when he said that it was fine for universities to maintain bans on guns when there is no imminent threat.(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu...(2) http://www.salon.com...","Permitting university students to carry handguns on campus would reduce campus violence. Attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 would have ended more quickly, or even been thwarted, had Cho's fellow students been armed with and trained to handle handguns. If a prospective gunman (or woman) knew beforehand that a large portion of the population they are considering attacking is armed, it reasons to believe that they might reconsider their anticipated actions. Most university students are old enough to carry and should be permitted to do so. http://opencarry.com...","Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind OK. Let's unpack some of the things you mentioned. You said longer waiting periods for certain assault rifles. Can you define assault rifle for me? Also, when you said 3-5 days for high-powered weapons- Can you define what a high powered weapon is? When you use the example of the fingerprint scanner- I think you have the right idea. I have not looked into the security of the guns too much but my first thoughts are the expensiveness to produce such things. I do agree about generally increasing security though-yes. For instance, I would like to see much better background checks. When you say America has an increase in mass shootings- that is what concealed carry is for. For example, in the Texas church shooting, the shooter got killed with an assault rifle by a civilian. This is also why teachers should have guns to prevent mass shootings in schools. But all in all, I completely agree with your premise. Guns should be allowed by law-abiding citizens, but there should restrictions to stop them from falling into he wrong hands. However, there will be some instances in which the shooter has not had any prior history or family history- so you simply can not prevent that, which is why i believe in teachers having guns and in concealed carry laws. I think we agree on the basic premise of your argument though-thoughts?","Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer.","The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.","Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Welcome to the debate. I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens. I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole. As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.","Loosen gun control Gun control, probably one of the most heated controversies in politics today,and I think a fun topic to debate on. The constitution on the United States of America allows citizens the right to bare arms. And yes today citizens are allowed to bare arms, however not extensively. I am sick of hearing about these women being ripped to pieces by homicidal men, gun control should be allowed on a more loose system. If you cannot carry a gun in areas where you are more likley going to use it what's the point in carrying one? Gun control should have a more thorough search and background system and then that should be the extent of it allow citizens who's background is clean and has children who are not mentally ill or have a history of a mental sickness background carry weapons extensively. If 3/5 women carried small caliber pistols the sexual and homicidal crime rate were these animals victimize women will drop rapidly.","Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Con makes a distinction between foresight and hindsight. While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations. With an increase of people carrying guns, we haven't seen a dramatic increase in crime rates, as Con would have us expect. Instead, we have seen drastic reductions in murder rates. This serves to show that it is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime. People are individuals, not probabilities, and a peaceful person won't become violent simply because they have a handgun.Con's position is that we should limit the accessibility of handguns, but we have already established a baseline of regulations to keep handguns out of the hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Not allowing citizens to carry handguns in this instance will only reduce the number of responsible citizens with handguns. Criminals will still be able to get handguns from illegal sources.It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens. Indeed, with the drastic increases in carry permits available to the public, we haven't seen crime rates soar. Instead, we have seen murder rates fall 42% since 1987. This fits in place well with the study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime.In conclusion, we can see that citizens carrying handguns can reduce crimes in many ways. Firstly, it allows citizens to defend themselves when attacked. Secondly, it allows citizens to help defend others who are in peril. Thirdly, the more guns responsible citizens carry, the more hesitant a criminal will be in trying to rob somebody. I have not only provided hypothetical explanations, but statistical analysis of murder rates, and reports of defensive gun uses. Con's position is based mainly off of probabilities, but a framework of probabilities that is at odds with actual occurrences must inherently be erroneous.","Gun Rights Both my mother and Father are retired New York city Cops. My mother and I believe that certain people like cops and Convent store Owner and those who carry large amount of money should have the right to own a gun. However My father and other people I have talk this issue about disagree with me and believe that I am being unfair and that I am playing favoritism.","Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school I believe teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school because it can lower the risk of casualties of school shootings and can make students and staff feel safer. Yes teachers would need to go through a background check and a fire arm training class before hand, as well as a test for mental stability. In the long run it would help save students lives around the world.","ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes 323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN). Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)","Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime - Clarification -Many terms may be used in this debate. One of them may be the term ‘shall issue’ laws. Shall issue laws are a form of liberalized concealed carry law. They generally mean if you meet the criteria of the law—including but not limited to—being 21 years of age or not having a violent criminal record, you will obtain this law. If you pass training and pass all requirements, you obtain the law.This is in contrast to may issue, meaning if you pass all of the requirements, you still may not be licensed as you need a ‘good reason’.No issue is self-explanatory. Concealed carry is banned, and you will never be issued a concealed carry permit. BOP I would argue both sides should be given equal burden of proofs. Although I am affirmative, CON is now against the status quo. Nearly all states have passed shall issue laws, and a few (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Vermont) have no restrictions [8]. Therefore, I have a burden to prove that concealed carry laws do reduce crime, and CON must prove they either have no discernable effect or increase crime.C1) Deterrence theoryThis will provide theoretical reasons as to why concealed carry laws would decrease crime.Deterrence theory began in the 1960s under the groundbreaking research by now deceased economist Gary Becker. His work in the field of criminology is almost unmatched. His theory is now known as deterrence theory. The theory holds criminals are rational actors and will act rationally towards incentives and punishments. Indeed, Becker finds many criminals are in crime solely for payment: money. But others see the emotional thrill overweighs the costs of punishment. Essentially, criminals react to different forgings. If there is increased threat to them, they back down and are less likely to commit criminal acts [1].This applies to concealed carry in a fairly obvious manner. If citizens are able to arm themselves, this increases the cost to the criminal. Citizens may now react violently towards criminal actors, either ending in a failed attack or even death. Armed citizens also could increase the chances which criminals are caught. Therefore, concealed carry laws significantly increase the risk of committing various crimes. Based on Becker’s theory, we should see a decrease in violent crime if people are now allowed to arm themselves.And concealed carry holds more of a deterrent than open carry. Open carry can and does deter criminals. However, it also means if you are a criminal you know who to avoid. This means either you will attack at a different place, or merely murder the carrier and then harm the defenseless masses. Concealed carry means the criminal is unaware as to who is armed. The criminal does not know when a civilian has the capacity to end his life. The criminal does not know who to attack first. The criminal is the one who will be taken by surprise. Although open carry does reduce crime, concealed carry is one of the strongest deterrence methods a civilian can possess.C2) How firearms affect crime ratesFirearms have two effects on crime. First, they can increase crime. They do this by arming criminals. This can empower them to commit more crime or make the severity of their crimes more severe. However, firearms can also reduce crime. Arming citizens will both deter crime but also reduce the impact of crime. Defensive gun uses, for example, would reduce the impact of the crime, even though the crime is still attempted. The question is which effect is more important. Overall, firearms have been demonstrated to have little effect on crime, and gun control is largely ineffective. Gun control primarily affects law abiding citizens, meaning they even have the potential to increase crime [2].So why is this relevant? Obviously, laws which give firearms primarily to law abiding citizens will reduce crime. Concealed carry laws chiefly arm law abiding citizens. This means the second effect—the crime reducing effect—is amplified by concealed carry laws.C3) Empirical research on right to carry lawsWhat does the empirical literature reveal to us as to how concealed carry laws affect crime rates?The research begins with two scholars, John Lott and David Mustard. Their study took into account every single country in the United States. Their study found concealed carry laws would save the economy 6.2 billion dollars each year due to reduced crime impacts. Murder fell 7.7%, rape fell 5.3%, aggravated assault fell 7.01%, and robbery fell 2.2% [3].John Lott’s work received criticism—which I am sure my opponent will mention. Regardless, the study received much praise, including from award winning criminologist Gary Kleck. Lott’s study was the first to utilize the entire country. Before him, studies would focus on small non-geographically representative areas. They studies every shall issue law passed between 1977 and 1992. Lott’s study attempted to control for many factors other than merely changes in shall issue laws in order to obtain the true effects—previous research did not. The study was also the first to focus on all types of crime, whereas studies before focused only on homicide. Although Kleck remained fairly skeptical of the studies conclusions, he noted the study proved concealed carry laws did not increase crime. He also conceded the study was the best designed study of publication to date [4].There has been a few literature reviews on the topic. A recent one by John Lott in the Maryland Law Review summarizes the recent literature. Little research was found as to whether or not concealed carry laws increase accidental death rates. Of the evidence currently in existence, there seems to be no relationship between concealed carry laws and accidental deaths or suicides. There have been a total of 29 studies published by economists and criminologists on the issue. Of those, 18 supported the idea concealed carry laws reduced crime, 10 claimed no effect, and only one found an increase in crime. There are 5 different methods which have concluded concealed carry laws reduce crime. Authors of different political views have contributed to the idea that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. If you extend the meta-analysis to include non-refereed studies, there are 21 studies which claim concealed carry laws reduce crime, 11 which claim no effect, and 3 claiming an increase. 60% of the literature, therefore, supports my position. Of the ones which claim increased crime, they have been found to be severely flawed. Ironically, they accuse Lott’s work of having coding errors. However, it was on a paper which he was not an author, and the coding errors did not affect the results. The ironic part is that their work is now notorious for coding errors, including having the same county in the dataset multiple times. Scholars have failed to reproduce their work, meaning it is highly unlikely these laws increase crime. The research claiming no effect also often makes errors—such as truncation bias—and when the errors are accounted for, they also find no increase in crime. Lott concludes, “the consensus is the same: right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.” [5][6].Some research even indicated concealed carry laws reduce police deaths. Before a law, states have a slightly higher chance of police deaths via shooting. After shall issue laws are passed, there is a slightly lower chance of being murdered if you are a police officer. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms does not endanger police officers—in fact, it may even protect them [7].Conclusion Research on general firearms tells us one thing: Guns can both increase and decrease crime. Concealed carry laws primarily arm citizens, indicating the decreasing crime effects would become amplified. This means there should be large decreases in crime after shall-issue laws are passed. Research on general crime also gives credence to the idea. Criminals are rational actors and respond to incentives and costs. Concealed carry laws increases the cost for criminals, meaning they would be more hesitant in attacking citizens who may be armed. And research on concealed carry laws themselves almost unanimously argue these laws reduce crime. Unless my opponent really refutes C3, he loses the debate.[1] http://www.nber.org...[2] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...[3] http://www.law.uchicago.edu...[4] Gary Kleck. Targeting Guns, pp 371-372.[5] http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu...[6] John Lott. More guns Less Crime (2010).[7] http://papers.ssrn.com...[8] http://upload.wikimedia.org...","Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life. Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning, why should said individual carry the gun at home or on their person anyway, people don't need to have the right to KEEP firearms. You don't need to own a firearm to take part in recreational activities. The firearm could be secured in the clubhouse, and the part about bearing arms generally refers to bearing arms against people, not deer, pieces of paper and clay disks. Your argument is invalid. I look forward to your rebuttal!","gun rights should NOT be taken away. Here is what you said \"but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes.\" -You can withhold the right to own a gun to a limit amount of people to try to limit a crime such as, withhold some guns (beyond automatic) to people only those with a hunting license (or military) can get a gun only those over the age of __ no more handguns to those without a military license some guidelines that makes the right to bear arms a privilege this would reduce crime yet allow people to protect themselves \"If you do not have a license you should not be able to own any more than a simple small caliber hand gun. not every thing should need a license.\" First let me address the license. I mis-understood. The license belongs to those selling firearms. Not those buying. So you can ignore that point. Since that is the case, I believe, as said above, I believe a hunting or military license should be needed. \"If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime.\" This is what currently happens, but that does not stop crime. Why? Because the right to bear arms is a right. It should be a privilege. To stop crime","DC's handgun ban threatens citizens' ability to defend themselves on the streets The majority of violent encounters occur on the street, versus in the home. Hand guns are a particularly important means to protecting one self on the street. This is primarily the case because handguns can be easily carried by law-abiding civilians, and concealed so as to avoid scaring other citizens. Shotguns and rifles do not share these characteristics.","Citizens should have guns Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.","Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime In this debate, I will argue that allowing (shall issue laws, for example) CCW will decrease violent crime in the United States. My opponent, as CON, will be arguing against this proposition, that CCW laws have no effect, or increase, violent crime rates. Definitions:Concealed Carry: concealed carry weapon, a practice in which a person carries a weapon, generally a firearm, hidden on their person. This generally (except in states, such as Alaska and Arizona) requires a license. Shall issue: A 'shall' issue law is a variant of law related to the legality of CCW practice. This means if you apply for a license, and meet the criteria (including, but not limited to, 21 and over in age, no criminal record), you will obtain the license. The authority will not exert discretion to awarding the licenses. May issue: Similar to shall issue, except that the authorities exert discretion on who obtains the licenses. In shall issue, the WILL give the permit if you meet the criteria, and as the name implies, they MAY give the license, the sheriffs department, for example, can deny certain applicants which pass the preliminary tests. No issue: CCW is banned, and only rarely will grant CCW permits. My opponent will be, essentially, arguing that lenient laws (shall issue and may issue) either do not effect crime, or increase the crime rate. I will argue that lenient laws will decrease violent crime.First round is for acceptance http://en.wikipedia.org...","No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military \"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership,\" said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost � of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, \"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, \"Guns don't kill people; people kill people.\"","In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.","Loosen gun control Apparently you listened to nothing I said, first of all the idea that a homicidal man purchasing a weapon legally is absurd no one with a misdemeanor or any type of mental history or illness is capable of such a purchase. My argument is that we should tighten the gun purchasing and licensing like a better background search including yourself and family members, but those able to purchase one should have little to no restrictions. You give me one individual who went threw a background search and then used a concealed weapon illegally and your point will be valid until then your just spewing opinions. The problem with firearms is that guns are able to be purchased illegally easily. Tighten the gun selling but those able to buy one should have no restrictions on carrying it as long as its concealed. Also your point about the constitution being written in \"different\" times is also stupidity. The times we live in now are much much more violent and dangerous than when the declaration was written. Crime is so high in the United States because there is no capital punishment anymore. It is more important than ever for citizens (women especially) to be carrying a concealed weapon, with the Bush administration out of the white house soon and the democratic party taking over the threat of another terrorist attack is almost a probability. The truth is these times are much more dangerous to the citizen and the right to bear arms is a right that should and must be implied today.","The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns. >>> The problem with your argument is if the goverment allowed all citizens to carry guns mentally handicapped unstable people and murderers would all have guns, a citizen is a member of a state or community. +++ This is untrue. A gun concealment law bans minors and mentally handicapped from carrying guns. +++ Mentally handicapped individuals pose less of a threat to society than an unarmed citizenry. A defenseless citizenry will be threatened by criminals constantly. A criminal's biggest fear is an armed victim. Criminals advantage from a defenseless citizenry. +++ You already conceded that gun control is uneffective. We are in concession. You can't rescind your statement. >>> laws are made by the state to protect those from dangers no state has banned everyone from holding guns so you say all citizens regardless of mental or physical health. +++ Alaska bans arms in bars, D.C. bans arms, Illinois bans concealment, etc. Gun control does not work and my opponent NEVER REBUTTED CONSTITUTIONALITY. I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument.","Loosen gun control As hard as it is for my opponent to admit he's wrong... he is, what he fails to realize is that a bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter who shoots the gun, there will always be less harmful ways to disarm a mugger/rapist (May i suggest a tsar or mace) that are just as effective and (If used properly) not deadly at all. Does it matter who shoots the gun let it be a woman or a criminal, a life is a life. As for you saying that the case i provided was not sufficient proof i disagree strongly saying that this convicted fellon was able to posses a gun and pass the mandatory background check that the police gave him when they confiscated the weapon's so if he got the guns back, which he did, that must mean they were legal guns, and i'm pretty sure that shooting someone is a crime. I'm not even going to get into the complications of getting all of the illegal guns off the street, but i would like to say it would be impossible to do so. As for his argument being stronger, he sort of just spewed ideas and thoughts that had very little in common. Gun control should be tightened for several reasons including but not limited to: 1. The right to bear arms does not refer to individual use but to the right for your government to bear arms, so the idea that you have a right to own a gun is \"Absurd\" 2. even with state-of-the-art background checks there will always be some who manage to fake their way through. 3. The idea of Millions of Civilians, who have no training with weapon's, being aloud to carry them in their pockets where ever they want is like running with a stick of dynamite in your back pocket (It's dangerous) 4. Civilians don't need to carry guns because we have well established government agencies (i.e. FBI, Police, CIA, about 100 other three initial agencies, and for more major threats the military)","There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.","Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.","Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. I'm very moderate on guns. I will never use or own a gun for any reason, but I support some level of gun rights for mentally healthy adults to use for lawful reasons. Self defense is a right.","Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime Why shouldn't I get to know if someone is carrying?If someone is acting like a lunatic I might tolerate that behavior if they are unarmed, but if they are armed I want to be able to get away.Instead of allowing concealed carry, only open carry should be allowed. The individual is more advantaged by open carry than concealed anyways. If you are openly carrying the criminal will know and avoid you. With concealed carry since most citizens aren't carrying criminals are unlikely to suspect that you are carrying. You want to avoid trouble in the first place if you can. That's why open carry makes more sense than concealed carry in deterring crime.Furthermore there is the risk of accidents and the right for citizens to know you are carrying so they can avoid you to avoid accidents.","Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : http://nation.time.com... Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. \"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department\"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.\" This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.","Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer. Nikil Arora. \"If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?\" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: \"The BBC news on Thursday night featured a report on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago gun ban; litigation launched after the successful case of DC v Heller, which overturned a similar outright prohibition on handguns in Washington DC. [...] the BBC’s report was worth watching. It largely focussed on the effect of laws already in force in Wisconsin, which allow the open-carry, but not concealed-carry, of handguns. It showed how responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying guns openly leads to people both feeling and being safer.\"","should normal americans be able to buy and keep guns I appreciate the point raised by you about individual safety, but I disagree with the solution you gave. For safety reasons, the law should be made strict or the policemen should be trained to be made more responsible and prepared or in any other way the law and order conditions should be made strong. That is the proper solution. Giving away the permission to hand over the guns to everyone will just increase such crimes because every citizen may not use them for safety reasons only. And this just cant be a solution because, in a sense, you are asking to teach robbery to common man in order to prevent robbery? How does this make sense? I am not sure of decreasing robbery in such case, but definitely many will use that knowledge in wrong direction. And how will you justify it's impression on young children? When they see guns at their place, what should be expected from them in their adolescence? And then we cry, 'Crime is increasing'...","Gun Free Zone on College Campus I do not think that \"everybody\" should be disarmed and I doubt you will find anyone willing to make that argument. My argument is that while I support a persons right to carry a gun, but I also believe that a school should have the right to decide whether or not they want firearms on their property. I think that just like people should have the right to carry firearms, people and properties should have the right to decide it they want guns on there property. In my opinion the fact that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm does not negate the fact that people have the right to say they don't want firearms on their property. Also, the fact that a public university is \"public\" property doesn't mean that it has to abide to the same laws as the public places you mentioned. I too will get more into stats and facts in later rounds but for now i just want to keep it short. I look forward to arguing with you.","I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. \"Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. \" Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.","18 year olds with concealed handguns Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?","Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod. So, people are paranoid because it's incredibly likely something will go down? I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon, and I think that if you do, you should know how to use it. The people with guns that aren't idiots aren't just paranoid morons, they're just ready to defend themselves. Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo. People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as \"weak\" by people that don't agree with them. How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.","Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. My opponent forfeits her round, extend arguments.","Open carry is vulnerable to attacker trying to take weapon \"The case AGAINST open carry firearms.\" OMFG Alaska. April 27th, 2010: \"I support our second amendment, but I am against people feeling empowered to carry their legally permitted weapons openly and here is why: many aren't trained to retain total control of their own weapons and there may come a time when somebody is able to grab it away from them and use it against innocent bystanders. Americans are used to seeing police openly carrying firearms. But because they are uniformed and easily identifiable and their position in society still commands some level of respect from most of society, most would never dream of overpowering or subduing a police officer in an attempt to grab their weapon away from them and then use it against innocents. Not so for some schlub picking his nose in a Def Leppard t-shirt, who may or may not have had the proper training in order to maintain control of their own weapon. Some crazy asshole may get it in his head that Mr. Nose Picker doesn't look all that tough and that he could probably wrest Mr. N. P.'s crappy little 9mm away from him and then use it to cause some righteous anarchy. And that is it in a nutshell. Gun control in this case means maintaining control of who is in possession of ones own weapon. I am not convinced that the majority of Americans are wholly prepared to do exactly that, which is why I'd prefer that those who choose to carry a legally registered firearm keep it concealed.\"","Conceal carry laws by private citizens I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.","Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime As Robert Cottrol, JD, PhD, Professor of Law and History at George Washington University, wrote in the article \"Gun Control Is Racist, Sexist, and Classist\" published in the Sept. 1999 issue of American Enterprise: \"In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good. .. [A right to bear arms] says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community. This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise. \" In other words, concealed carry laws are very beneficial to the community. It allows people to protect others. Here are some statistics from Campuscarry. com: 1. At the start of the 2010 fall semester, 14 Colorado community colleges (38 campuses) began allowing licensed concealed carry on campus. 2. Since the fall semester of 2006, Utah state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of Utah's nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses). 3. Concealed carry has been allowed on the two campuses of Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO, and Pueblo, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. 4. After allowing concealed carry on campus for an average of more than three years (as of June 2011), none of these 26 colleges (71 campuses) has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides) or a single resulting gun accident. When we look at the concealed carry movement as a whole, from its beginnings in the late 1980s to the present, we see a huge increase in the number of people with carry permits, from around one million in 1987 to around six million today. Now here's the kicker: during this same time frame, violent crime has fallen to record lows in America, hovering nationwide at rates not seen since the early 1960s. Historic numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens, who are increasingly carrying those guns in public, and a dramatic, ongoing drop in violent crime. Now there's something to think about! Tactically speaking, the element of surprise is a great thing. If someone doesn't know you have a firearm, then they can't tactically adjust them selves for that. If they were to try and rob you and you pull a firearm they didn't know about, that surprises most criminals, not all, but most. Something they were not expecting has the potential to rattle cages. Plus when you are out in public I think people are less likely to be jumpy or nervous if they don't see a firearm on your side and no badge on your shirt. Again, not all people would respond that way I wouldn't think, but some might. . http://concealedguns.procon.org... . http://www.campuscarry.com... . http://blog.chegg.com... . http://www.usconcealedcarry.net... . http://www.usacarry.com...","Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. I'm not sure exactly why you have the resolved: in the title. Hand guns are very useful everyone. People can use them to defend their selves against both humans and animals. Our forefathers wanted the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment to protect against totalitarian governments. \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" As you can see bears' arms are important to Americans. http://constitution.findlaw.com... http://www.mrwallpaper.com...","Concealed Carry on College Campuses Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.","18 year olds with concealed handguns because it is wrong if the 18 yo has it because he cold hurt someone or kill another or himself end of discussion","I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind You mention the NRA a lot in your argument. We could talk about NRA all day long, but I'd rather we stick with the core of the argument. It is ridiculous for cities to charge you for not giving them your gun. People are the ones killing people; guns are not. I think we should have more security to actually get the guns and to access them. Again, Concealed Carry owners break the law 6% less than the police! They are the most responsible citizens in America. When you bring up all the mass shootings: This is why teachers should have guns, to stop the shooter. It would only be teachers who already conceal and carry, just like they do at the mall, taking a walk, or doing anything. You can't deny the fact that there were multiple armed security guards in the Parkland shooting, yet NONE of them did anything to stop it! So your saying to leave it to the cops. If someone starts shooting at you, the cops aren't right there to stop it. You can shoot back if you have a gun, or other armed civilians can. In the Texas church shooting, a man stopped the shooter with an AR-15. In a Tennessee church shooting, a good Samaritan stopped the shooter and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. These are just to name a few. Concealed-Carry people are more law-abiding than the police and the most responsible people. By the time the cops arrive, it will be to late, as we have seen in so many of these shootings. Again, more guns save lives than take them. In places where guns were banned, murder rates spiked up. This is because of bad guys using knives or getting guns illegally. If the government takes away our second-amendment right, we will have no way to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.","The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word \"infringed\". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...","All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license. Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it. Burden of proof is shared.","Conceal to carry I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.","Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod. You come off very anti-gun. I apologize for my assumption. Now, to the argument here. Who's to say that someone shouldn't carry a gun to feel safe? It seems to me that someone would be more likely to be able to help a situation, if the need should arise, if they were armed rather than attempting to user their fists to deliver justice. Correct? Sure, there's some people that shouldn't be using guns, but there's always someone that manages to use something they shouldn't. Like a car, for example. Basically, I'm getting that you really just want people to have to undergo proper training in order to carry a gun publicly. That makes perfect sense, yes. We definitely shouldn't let just any old jerk carry around a gun because they want to feel safe. But we shouldn't say that people don't have a right to be safe either. Guns don't(usually) turn people into complete wimps, and people don't usually want guns because they're wimps. It all comes back to safety. Why would you tackle a gunman willing to kill you? It would make a lot more sense for someone that was carrying to actually do something to him. That doesn't make the carrier a wimp, it makes them a logical human being.","Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.","Conceal carry laws by private citizens Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.","Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.","I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.","I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.","Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.","I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an \"assault weapons\" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.","Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources: http://gunvictimsaction.org... http://www.justfacts.com...","Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources: http://concealedcampus.org..."],"string":"[\n \"Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.\",\n \"Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry is better when more people are around.\",\n \"Private ownership of a gun in the US should be illegal for every citizen. Round 1Lack of reasonThere is no reason why a citizen of the US should require a gun for personal use. There may be a reason for a Police Officer, when properly trained, to require a gun. However, the Police Officers ownership should not be private (i.e. he should not have one in his home), he should only be able to pick one up whilst at work and then have to return it again when he leaves. People do not 'need' guns to protect themselves from the possibility of a tyrannical government as that is something that simply would not happen in the US.A country is safer without gunsLet's take a look at this graph: It's interesting to note that in the UK, where gun laws are a lot more restrictive, gun homicides per 100,000 are a HELL of a lot lower than in the US. As, in fact, are non-gun homicides, therefore proving that less guns does not mean more murders.Ok, you may think, why not just ban automatics but let people have handguns? This is why: Here, again, we see that, in general, the more handguns are owned per 100,000 the more handgun-related deaths there are per 100,000. Israel is an anomaly, but that is purely because a vast majority of Israel citizens are involved somehow with the military. This shows that stopping US citizens, who do not NEED guns at all, from buying any kind of gun, handgun or otherwise, could only be a positive thing.The second amendmentAmerican's tend to get very uppity about how gun laws breach the second amendment. However, in the case of Cruikshank V. the United States in 1876, the Supreme Court of the US ruled that the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. Later on, in 1939, the supreme court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Thus, the second amendment is not breached by any kind of gun laws, including the complete illegalization of their ownership. It is the right of an American citizen to be kept safe, which they will be if they are not allowed to own a gun, for their own good.\",\n \"U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. Now, I will tell you my arguments. I as the opposition team oppose to the resolution because if U. S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too. For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country? !) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute. Of course they will get punished, but it would be too late for you. Although it can be good since you can protect your selves if you have one, it can be used as a purpose of Assassin. If Americans keep on legalizing the carriage of guns, more and more incidents like those above will happen. It is never too late, so they should illegalize U. S. citizens carrying guns.\",\n \"Gun rights I'm so sorry con but your whole argument in round 2 is false as per you failed to cite any sources.My good friend a teacher would never have a gun on school grounds in the first place- this is only a privilege for principals. Teachers guns would be easily obtainable by children causing a risk. According to http://www.ijreview.com...:USA is 24th in murder rate of countries so we need to arm our citizens. Also John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes say “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” USA's Murder rate has decreased over %65 since 1973 in stride with many state's gaining gun rights.John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime. says: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)There is a direct relationship that the more citizens have guns, the less the murder rate.Let's save our children and generation and give the the people of this world guns to protect themselves!\",\n \"Firearms shouldn't be regulated any further, and CCW location bans should be lifted. Obviously due to the recent Newtown shooting there has been a spike in talks of the second amendment and if it should be altered. When I hear these bickering politicians it annoys me because the decision seems obvious. I believe very strongly that high-powered rifles and semi-auto firearms should not be illegalized just because of one incident. I also think that if 26 adults were gunned down in an office building, that no one would notice. Finally I think that a quick and easy way to solve the problem of these mass-murders is to lift the bans on where you can bring your concealed weapons. I don't just mean in schools too, I mean everywhere, malls, theaters, work, anywhere that some wacko could come in and lights out a handful of people. If you have an armed apponent, or even a few, your chances of taking these people down goes down. I'm sure that there are many teachers, retail workers, and workers that have their CCW's that would be glad to save thirty people by sending a lead chunk hurdling into some punks skull. I respect any opponent that whishes to battle me in this argument of rights.\",\n \"Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Well, I understand everything that you're saying, and it makes sense. I just don't think that allowing more concealed weapons by non-professionals in colleges is the solution. There is definitely a problem with the fact that pointless violence is occurring at campuses, but I believe there's only been about 9 campus shootings in the past 40 years. Every life counts, but I don't think the situation is so severe that concealed weapons should be allowed on colleges. I agree that a vast majority of CC permit holders will be acting defensively and responsibly with their weapon, but there is just too much room for more problems when guns are allowed legally. This whole CC permit business makes guns more available anyways, because people are able to legally buy and sell the guns and carry them. This makes it easier for potential criminals to get a hold of a gun. I know that they could get a hold of one anyways, but the fact that it is easier when there are more guns going around means that someone that may not have gone through the trouble if guns were really rare may be able to obtain one easily and use it. I think there are other solutions that could work alternatively to the CC permit. There could be increased security, so that if a student starts shooting then there will be a trained, professional security guard nearby. Also, there could be metal detectors/x rays or some other precaution before students are able to enter the campus.\",\n \"ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Firstly, I would like to first start by refuting my opponent's responses. Firstly, handguns are the most successful weapon of defense according to criminologist brief 23, therefore, to use a knife would not do to help if a burglar were to say invade with a rifle. Also a rifle is required to be held with both hands, so any chance of actually capturing a robber would be mythical. I would also like to add that only 0.1 percent to of robbers were actually scared off with rifles, according to the violence policy center. My opponent said that we have access to rifles and shotguns therefore we are not violating the second amendment. But to take even one of the options for self defense our citizens have a right to is unlawful, according to the Supreme Court. It is logical to state that the Supreme Court is more reliable than my opponent. He also said that criminals have access to legal guns more than illegal guns, but my counterplan will also prohibit criminals from getting guns while still maintaining the liberties of the American citizens. This solves better for the value, which he failed to apply his arguments to and thus has conceited to my evaluation statements, which he dropped as well. Thank you, and this is why I have already won this debate.\",\n \"There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms 1: all \\\"small arms\\\", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....\",\n \"Right to carry arms As my opponent forfeited the previous round, the final round of debate, it is my job to formally end this debate. Since this is the final speech of the round, I would like to condense all the issues in this debate into two central questions. 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? On Side Con, I proudly believe the answer to both questions is NO; Side Con has a clear COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE on both of these issues. With that in mind, let\\\"s examine the first question: 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? As my opponent brought up in his first speech, \\\"Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed.\\\" The logic is simple: \\\"if anyone could have a gun, then I shouldn\\\"t attack anyone for fear he/she might pull a gun on me.\\\" The Instigator then defended this point with studies from Dr. John Lott. Yet, as we saw in my previous two speeches, my opponent\\\"s logic does not hold up. First and foremost, Dr. John Lott\\\"s studies have been found invalid due to a lack of statistical significance. The findings he had could have just as easily arisen from pure luck due to a large number of confounding variables in his study. The controversy behind the funding of his research is only a cherry on top. Furthermore, my opponent did not adequately respond to arguments put forth in the 1st and 2nd Con speech: openly shown firearms are a far more effective deterrent. Once again, whom would you rather rob? The old lady who might have a gun or the old lady who has a gun? The answer is clear. My opponent also ignores the psychological elements of crime, such as criminal desperation and drug addiction. Many won\\\"t make the logical leaps my opponent assumes they will. The conclusion is simple. In a shall-issue law world, there will still be muggings, rapes, and murders. There are better, safer alternatives to this scenario my opponent failed to refute. With this in mind, we can safely say the answer to this first question is NO, favoring Side Con. 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? There has been a slight back-and-forth over this issue over the course of debate. Yet, looking over the previous two speeches, Con definitively emerged triumphant. The comparisons Side Pro made in Round 2 between the VPC and David Burnett were not \\\"apples-to-apples\\\" comparisons, as noted in Side Con\\\"s Round 2 speech. To this day, individuals with legal concealed weapons permits kill citizens across the country. Such records are often incomplete, as not all crimes are reported. People such as Philip Davis have no chance to flee, giving the ease of use of a concealed handgun. My opponent claims \\\"citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them.\\\" While, ideally, neither the criminal nor the average citizen should have a gun in the first place, a concealed weapons permit makes it far easier to kill a person with malicious intent than to defend oneself from an attacker. As discussed in Con\\\"s Round 1 speech, the most common concealed handguns, namely the 9mm, are horrendous for self-defense. While they are rapid fire, the stopping power is minimal, especially when put in the hands of an untrained marksman. A criminal, on the other hand, is more likely to use the handgun as a threat, holding someone up for valuables. Or, if murder is the design, the criminal is far more likely to have practiced using the gun than the everyday citizen. These handguns are far more practical as murder weapons than self-defense. This point was not questioned at ALL by Side Pro. Side Pro also failed to properly refute Con\\\"s second contention: convicted felons do regain their gun rights, and do kill again. In Washington ALONE, 429 felons have engaged in crime after regaining their gun rights, using their weapons as either leverage or as murder weapons. Even if denying these people of their gun rights would prevent practically the population of Nebraska from owning concealed handguns, this is still a step towards the safety of the American citizenry. If we look at the deaths and the nature of concealed firearms, we overwhelmingly find the answer to the second question is NO. Thus, who has the comparative advantage? Side Con. Side Pro may like the theory behind \\\"shall-issue\\\" laws, but, in practice, these laws have not markedly improved pubic safety. If anything, they make our world LESS safe. As Side Con has repeatedly shown you, voters, concealed firearms should be illegal for US private citizens. So, for the good of restricting gun proliferation, vote Con. For the safety of the American people, vote Con. For the family of Philip Davis, vote Con. Thank you.\",\n \"USA should have more gun restrictions Ladies and Gentlemen, I am TheBunnyAssassin. In this debate, I will be negating the topic \\\"USA should have more restrictions\\\". Contention 1: Fear Fear is one factor that supports gun users. In states such as Texas, where citizen are allowed to carry guns in a way known as \\\"concealed carry\\\", there is relatively less crime related to firearms. Why? The reason for this is because no criminal armed with a firearm would be paranoid enough to attempt to kill citizens who have a high chance of owning a firearm. Imagine as a criminal rushes into a mall with a little pistol and assault rifle in Texas. The moment he pulls out his gun, about 10-12 men pull out their pistols, which are pointed at him (or already discharged at the criminal). Here is a poll from prisons all over the United States: Have you ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No: 66%, Yes: 34% Was there ever a time in your life when you decided not to do a crime because you knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun? No, never: 61%, Yes: 49% [H]ave any of the criminals you have known personally ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No, none: 31%, Yes: 69% As we can see above, there has been a good amount of criminals who abstained from crime or got wounded due to their armed victim. We can conclude that fear caused by these victims may cause criminals to think twice about raiding one home. Contention 2: Irony My opponent argues for his affirmative side, therefore, we can conclude that he wishes firearms to be abolished. Let me arrange a situation which would occur immediately once firearms are banned or restricted in the United States. When guns are prohibited, the government will order every single citizen to turn in their firearm. I will ask every viewer this question. Do you think that the criminals in the United States will turn in their firearms? Their illegal guns? The ones obtained from their black markets? Does everybody believe that when the gun restriction law is passed, the common criminal who has taken countless lives with his gun will walk to the police station, and say, \\\"Here, take my AR-15 and AK-47 which I got from Russia! I will follow the government standards because I am a good citizen!\\\" Obviously not. In addition, when the citizen's firearms are taken away, they will be left defenseless against the marauding criminals who now know that citizen's guns have been taken away. This is why there is a quote about how people \\\"don't bring a knife to a gun fight\\\". How does a United States citizen defend his home when he gets shot the moment, he raises his melee weapon against a thug? By the time the police even get halfway to the home, the man who tried to defend his family is dead, shot because he couldn't even intimidate the intruder. This is one of the greatest ironies of the gun control debate. By taking away firearms from citizens, the government might as well threw them out for slaughter. Taking away firearms does not reduce death. It increases it. Thank you for viewing my arguments, TheBunnyAssassin The next round is rebuttal. Source(s): -[117] Michigan Law Section 28.422: \\\"License to purchase, carry, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications....\\\" Accessed September 2, 2010 at http://law.justia.com... -Report: \\\"2008 Crime in the United States, Murder.\\\" Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009. http://www2.fbi.gov... -The calculations that determine this fact were performed by a licensed actuary using two different methodologies, both of which yield the same answer. An Excel file containing these calculations is available upon request.\",\n \"New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate Thanks JMRTC = Right to Carry ARGUMENTS1) Increases risk and fearThe individual right to carry guns does not make people feel safe. A study done by Harvard shows that 59% of American citizens felt less safe if more people in their community were allowed to carry guns, 24% felt the same, and only 12% felt more safe [1]. About 90% thought that citizens should not be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, bars, and college campuses [1]. It can be seen that people don't feel safer but are more worried about who might have a gun when they are sitting in a bar, or going to college. Their fears are not unfounded. Incidents like the highly publicized Virginia Tech massacre have been occuring every few years since 1990 [2]. More guns floating in society not only increases risk to individuals, but also increases their fear making us a more fearful society overall. Suicide attempts are impulsive. From a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of people who attempted suicide took less than 5 min from the decision to kill themsleves from the actual attempt while 70% took less than an hour [10]. The easy access to guns makes them highly dangerous. If guns weren't available, people will have more time to rethink. 2) Criminals obtain guns easilyPro says that criminals will break the law to get a gun. Let's consider how criminals get their guns: 46% of criminals in the US get them through a process known as \\\"straw purchasing\\\" [3]. The process is simple. A convict gets someone else to buy a gun for him [3]. It is difficult, almost impossible to catch. The criminal's friend or family member will simply buy a gun and give it to him. That is a disadvantage of the right to carry (RTC): people can buy guns for others by bending the law. Without an RTC, people who can legally buy guns cannot just buy a gun and pass it onto their friend who will then use it to commit a crime. 3) Increased domestic violence Pro says that there are training programs that help people use guns safely. But are they mandatory? Would everyone in the house have had the training? It is more likely that a gun kept in the house would fall into the hands of an untrained person who would either accidentally shoot their own family, or from whom the burglar can immediately snatch the gun away. 30% of victims were murdered by people known to the victim, 13% by family members, and only 12% by strangers [4]. This shows that it is over 3 times more likely for a victim to be murdered by someone they know and has access to their house. So the harmss of having a gun in the house outweigh the benefits of a small possibility that it could be used defensively against an intruder. A study conducted by UCLA involving over 9000 subjects concluded that having a gun at home is a risk for adults to be shot fatally or commit suicide with a firearm at a ratio of 1.41 [7]. This means a gun at home makes you about 41% more likely to be a victim of homicide or suicide. A separate study conducted by the University of Tennessee, Memphis concludes that \\\"rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance\\\" [8]. REBUTTALS1) Self Defense from PolicePro says \\\"anything is possible.\\\" The question is: Is it likely? Likelihood is more important that possiblity when doing a comparison of benefits and harms. Pro also says that cops might abuse their power. Pointing a gun at them isn't going to help. The solution is to call 911, get other cops at the scene. It is far less likely that the entire department is corrupt. Cops are much better trained than the average citizen to use their guns so actually shooting a cop is out of the question. If Pro only advocates waving the gun at the corrupt cop hoping he will go away, the suspect will be taken into custody for pointing a firearm at a cop. This is absolutely not a benefit of the RTC as Pro tries to argue. If anything, it is a disadvantage. 2) Self Defense from Criminals(A) 534,000 cases of self-defense? That is 0.001% of the US population. Quite small. Guns are not likely to be successfully used for self-defense. The American Journal of Public Health conducted a study in Philadelphia and concluded that on average, guns did not protect their owners from assualt [6]. This is because attacks are often surprise attacks and the victim has no time to draw his weapon. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise avoidable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Gun owners also increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them [6]. The study concluded that a person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault than one without a gun [6]. (B) Police protectionPro says that police can't guarantee the safety of citizens. But as I have shown, neither can guns.Warren v DC only stated that police had no special responsibility to protect any individual. It upheld that police did have a responsibility to protect the public at large. The ruling was in response to a victim suing the police for not checking the backdoor of the house even though the police had arrived at the front door. Instead of suing the police on a small technicality, the victims should have helped prosecute the criminals. The average police response time was 8 minutes in 1995 [9]. This is steadily decreasing [9]. It is better to wait for the police rather than use a gun and get shot in the process. 3) Crime DeterrentPro says that people feel safer. This isn't true. 59% of people felt less safe with more guns in the community, only 12% felt more safe. Pro's argument relies on the assertion that once criminals know that a person is armed, they are more likely to retreat. However, the criminal is just as likely to shoot the person if they think that they will be shot. Pro relies on the assumption that gun users are safe, responsible people with good training on how to use a gun. There is no way to guarantee this. Pro cites John Lott to say that crime decreases with right to carry. I don't have John Lott's book but I have evidence showing that Lott used fraudulent data. The Washigton Monthly reports that Lott produced a statistical model \\\"Model 1\\\", that showed that significant crime decreases when guns were banned. Errors were discovered in Lott's work. Lott admitted the errors and posted a new table with new results. However, his new results were similar to his old ones [12]. This was bcause, since Lott had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model (\\\"Model 2\\\") for use in this new table without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact [12]. Lott then quitely removed the old model from his website and put the new model in. He used the new model with the old data as well as the new data to make it seem like he used the new model all along [12]. Lott also misrepresented the findings of the FBI [13]. John Lott has been discredited, he was caught using falsified data. RTC does not decrease crime.A study published in the Journal of the American Institute for Economic Research shows that RTC actually increases instances of aggravated assault [11]. 4) Sport Pro says shooting sports are safe. I disagree and negated his stats. He still asserts that shooting sports are safe with no new evidence. Shooting sports are not only dangerous, but what does it even matter whether or not they are safe? By itself, it is not a real benefit of the individual RTC. People could do target practice with replica guns and bullets. Just the fact that people want to play with real guns is no reason to allow people to carry guns while at home or in the community. Sources http://bit.ly...\",\n \"Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, \\\"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\\\" Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the \\\"supreme law of the land.\\\"\",\n \"Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: • The holder being at least 21 years of age • No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years • No domestic violence conviction • Being a legal citizen of the United States • Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) • Not delinquent in child support payments • Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun • Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them • Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.\",\n \"US citizens should have the right to bear arms The motion is that US citizens should have the right to bear arms. Pro shall support the motion and give evidence whilst con shall oppose the motion.\",\n \"America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia. I believe all citizens (who can legally own a firearm) should be required to own a firearm. I believe every citizen should be able of carry a handgun (with current chcl restrictions) without a permit. I believe all citizens between ages 20 and 50 should be required to train in a militaristic capacity (physical fit tests, fire arms qualifications, etc) and required to participate in atleast one firearm training/competition per month to keep skills sharp. The citizen militia should not be deployable like the armed service, but required to function like the national guard in times of need and tragedy.\",\n \"gun control is worthless I do not hold all of these views personally. I am defending them for the sake of debate.I will not support the outlawing or banning of all guns, although I will defend the argument that certain particularly dangerous weapons (bombs for instance) do not belong in civilian hands. I am making the argument that certain gun control measures are not worthless – to the contrary, they are essential for a safe nation. 1. It disarms those who might be able to stop an attackerThe gun control measures which I am defending limit access to guns in four ways: (1) gun ownership is only legal if you have a gun license without which it is illegal to purchase or carry a gun, (2) people with a history of criminality or mental instability will be unable to obtain a license, (3) it should be illegal to carry concealed guns in public, and (4) there should be a minimum age for being allowed to obtain a license. Homicidal attackers are likely to be violent and/or mentally unstable. Normal civilians who might use guns to defend themselves are less likely to have a criminal history. As such, the gun control measures I'm making a case for won't change the access generally non-violent and sane civilians have to guns, except if they are not adults. However, it would make it a whole lot harder for proven criminals or the mentally unstable to get their hands on a violent weapon.2. Shooters are going to get guns anywayThat's like saying we shouldn't have laws against rape, murder, fraud or speeding because people are going to do it anyway. Sure, people break the law all the time, I won't argue that. However, we need the laws for several reasons. Firstly, to protect everyone's rights as guaranteed in the Constitution; secondly, to make it possible for law enforcement officials to prevent crime; thirdly, to allow the justice system to punish criminals. Without the gun restriction measures I'm endorsing, a convicted murderer on parole could walk right into the middle of a mall brandishing an assault rifle, and at no point would the police have the power to detain him or force him to relinquish his weapon. This is dangerous. Finally, gun control laws will make it far harder for likely shooters (i.e. the violent, criminal and mentally unstable) to acquire guns. That alone is a worthy reason to seriously consider passing, or keeping, such laws.3. Slippery slopeIf we go after guns, what else will the government take from us? Cars? Detergent? Kitchen knives? This slippery slope argument comes up all the time, but it's wildly silly for two reasons. Firstly: we're debating gun *control*, remember? Cars kill more than guns do – this is why we have licenses for cars, and a minimum age for driving, and a training period, and your license gets suspended if you use your car illegally or destructively. The other two aforementioned instruments are not as deadly as guns, so these sorts of restrictions are not necessarily as productive as they are regressive. I don't support knife licenses. Secondly, and far more importantly, all of the non-gun examples share one trait that guns lack: they are not purely weapons. Their function is not exclusively destructive. As such, appropriate regulation measures between the two groups are in no way comparable. Cars, detergent and kitchen knives all share important alternative roles in the average lifestyle. Cars are highly vital for efficient transport, especially in big cities or across large distances. Detergent is used to clean the home. Knives are used as cooking utensils and other types of knives are used in art, construction and eating. However, guns are used *exclusively* to kill people; furthermore, that is their *primary* purpose. So it's actually ridiculous how many restrictions we have on cars in, say, America, while there are virtually no restrictions on guns.Now I will briefly make a case for some of my skeleton arguments.5. Gun ownership should only be legal if you have a gun license, without which it is illegal to purchase or carry a gun. If we have car licenses, we should have gun licenses. It's as simple as that. If you would like to revoke gun licenses, please revoke car licenses and see where that gets your country.6. People with a history of criminality or mental instability should be unable to obtain a license. The power to kill should not be given to people who are proven to be violent, law-breaking, sadistic or irrational. Shops which sell guns should have the right to demand a psychiatric evaluation of any customer. Again, we are not talking about an instrument with mainly positive and constructive uses, and certain alternative abuses; we are talking about the exclusively destructive function of killing.7. It should be illegal to carry concealed guns in public.If you are not a criminal, why would you be worried that revealing your gun will alert others to your gun ownership? You may be more likely to be stopped briefly by the police, but this is for sensible safety reasons. You are less likely to be attacked. However, there is really no good reason to disguise your gun illegally unless for criminal purposes. This will make it far easier for law enforcement to apprehend shooters before they act.8. There should be a minimum age for being allowed to obtain a license.There is a minimum age for drinking and receiving a car license. If for no other reason, there should be a minimum age restriction in order to protect children from themselves. A policeman could not stop a five-year-old from carrying, handling or using a gun without such regulations in place. This would endanger not only people and property surrounding the five-year-old, whose motor and cognitive skills are far from fully developed, it would also seriously endanger the child. For these reasons we restrict drinking and driving age. Until you are at least 15, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of driving. Until you are at least 18, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of voting. Until you are at least 21, you are considered unable to shoulder the responsibility of drinking alcohol. When can a person shoulder the responsibility of having the power to kill dozens of human beings within minutes?Gun restrictions are not worthless. Some have useful applications. (Note that I do not need to prove that their benefits outweigh their detriments in order to win the debate – only that they have benefits in the first place.) Please vote for Ithacus / Con if you feel that I have accurately and persuasively defended that position. Thank you.\",\n \"Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. All right I'll start small with hopes my opponent won't forfeit next round. 1. Carriers should be required to obtain a permit to show basic levels of competence with their firearm of choice. 2. Lack of permits would make it time-consuming for LEOs to distinguish lawful citizens from felons. It takes seconds to show a permit.\",\n \"School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms I am fairly new to this site, i am not quite sure if i picked the right side so read this first, i believe teachers and/or students should be allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.\",\n \"Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals \\\"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been \\\"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\\\"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either \\\"often\\\" or \\\"regularly\\\" worried that they \\\"[m]ight get shot at by the victim\\\"; and 57% agreed with the statement, \\\"Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.\\\" James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].\\\" --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. \\\"A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), \\\"More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.\\\" That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, \\\"more than 240,000.\\\" So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes \\\"represents a small percentage of those with permits.\\\" More like \\\"tiny.\\\" By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit.\\\" http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...\",\n \"Gun control should be limited to age and only non-rocket weapons should be allowed. \\\"Why did anyone decide to control guns, it is only metal, and not control knives, screwdrivers, cars, etc. (answer this first)\\\" Because A) Guns are usually more destructive than knives and screwdrivers. You can kill someone with a knife or a screwdriver, but guns are generally more effective. B) People are more afraid of guns than cars. This has nothing to do with the lethality of either, by rather, the perception of \\\"scary\\\" guns are and how \\\"not scary\\\" cars are, despite cars killing a few thousand more people each year.[1] C) An argument made for gun control that if you make guns illegal or heavily restricted, then gun crime will decrease. \\\"Guns have been demonized and all a gun is is metal.\\\" And usually plastic these days, and sometimes more exotic materials. More to the point, it's a \\\"piece of metal\\\" that can be used to kill people with greater efficiency than pieces of metal that aren't guns. \\\"People kill, not guns\\\" While it may be technically true in the sense that a gun cannot act independently, a person with a gun is demonstrably more dangerous than an unarmed person. \\\"I believe that if a person is over 18,\\\"\\\"If it is limited only to age,\\\" There are legitimate reasons why a minor could arm themselves: target shooting, hunting, self defense, and practice for all of the above. \\\"he or she should be able to buy any gun\\\" Define \\\"any gun\\\". Are you including gyrojets and air rifles? \\\"carry it anywhere\\\" There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to restrict where one could carry guns. A politician making a controversial speech might rather not be shot at. An explosives storage facility might not want to risk a negligent discharge setting off an explosion. One might not want a murderous, psychotic ex sneaking into your house armed[2]. I do think that the carry laws as they are in the US in some places in some circumstances are too restrictive- but allowing people to carry guns literally anywhere is not a reasonable solution. [1] http://1.usa.gov... [2] http://bit.ly...\",\n \"Is strengthening gun control laws necessay More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don\\\"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun. Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.\",\n \"Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School I think that teachers should be able to carry concealed guns at school but not have them loaded. In the case of a actual emergency the teacher then can load the gun for protection . Right after the event they MUST unload it.\",\n \"I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind I believe in the right to protect myself through concealed-carry and to protect against a tyrannical government. NO FORFEITS PLEASE!\",\n \"I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind I believe in concealed-carry in public, And the right to protect myself against intruders and a tyrannical government. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.\",\n \"Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Firstly, I don't understand how the campuses of America will be safer if any student with a CC permit is able to walk around with concealed weapons. Being a student myself, it would make me very uneasy to know that anybody walking around me might have a concealed firearm, even if they are supposedly \\\"smart, responsible people.\\\" Also, when guns become involved, it is rarely an issue of \\\"one clean shot to the head.\\\" If there are a bunch of students carrying guns, and someone comes in with their own weapon intending to shoot people, do you think that one of the students is just going to say \\\"don't worry, I'll handle this\\\" and get a clean shot in the assailant's head? I think the reality of the situation would be that there would be a period of chaos when all of the concealed weapon holders take those weapons out and start firing. There is even high probability that bullets will miss their targets and innocent people will get injured or killed. Also, I'm sure that in the past many CC permit holders, not in schools but in other places, have actually been the crazy criminals who take out those concealed weapons and start firing on people. Schools are places of books, not guns. There are thousands of colleges throughout the United States, and the number of campuses where shootings happen is relatively tiny. If students anywhere with a CC permit are allowed to take guns to school, the number of shooting will go up because fighting fire with fire does not work. Giving people more opportunities to use weapons has never been, and never will be, a solution to violence. Lastly, using our \\\"right to bear arms\\\" is a really poor argument for allowing arms in schools. Do you really think when our founding fathers made the \\\"right to bear arms\\\" they were thinking of it pertaining to schools? I really don't think so. I think that right was created mainly because of the need for a militia, which means that the citizens needed to have guns on hand in case they were called to fight the British, French, Spanish, Native Americans, or whoever. Clearly, there are no more militias in the United States, and even if there were it would have nothing to do with schools. Allowing guns in schools will not reduce crime, that just doesn't make sense. Schools should continue to be Gun-Free Zones.\",\n \"Reciprocity of conceal carry permits. The requirements for CCW regulations within each individual jurisdiction should not be as complex . The implementation of Reciprocity legislation should standardize the requirements once and for all . Currently many states don't even grant you the bureaucratic mechanism for applying for a CCW if you're from a different state . Our Constitution grants us the Right to bear arms and the right for Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.\\\"... If individuals have the right to bear arms and free to move from and about . Doesn't local gun control laws hinders that freedom ? . My stance with the establishment of Reciprocity of CCW permits among states would be to resolve the issues created by leftist chauvinist authoritarian infiltrated in law enforcement agencies and draconian zealots in the Judicial system prosecuting law abiding citizens moving from and about while legally in possession of a fire arm . Far apart from what the anti gun movement would like to lead you to believe . Legal gun owners are the most law abiding citizens this country haves .\",\n \"States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, \\\"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.\\\" Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.\",\n \"Gun Free Zone on College Campus I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think \\\"everybody\\\" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.\",\n \"Concealed carry laws decrease crime definitions: Conceal carry: Being allowed to carry a weapon hidden. \\\"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Requirements for the permit: \\\"is at least 21 years of age; � is a resident of the state; � provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check; � has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; � is not a fugitive from justice; � is not an illegal alien; � is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; � has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution; � has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services; � is not subject to a restraining or protection order; � has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; � is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more thanone year imprisonment; � has completed a firearms safety or training course; and � pays a licensing fee.\\\" [1] __________ Round 1 acceptance clarifications and definitions. Good luck [1] Snyder, Jeffery R. \\\"Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun.\\\" CATO, 22 Oct. 1997\",\n \"U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. I will first go to my own case and then to my opponent's case. Contention 1: Carrying weapons freely is already legal in the U.S. 1st of all, I will state that \\\"U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns\\\" because it is a protected right in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. \\\"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.\\\" Thus, U.S. citizens are already allowed to carry weapons freely. Rebuttal: \\\"because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too\\\" Um, any examples or sources? U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns now and at least 34th in intentional homicide rate by country per 100,000 people. Thus, the U.S.A. has already proven that carrying guns in not as threatening as thought. \\\"For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. \\\" Sources? I don't know when or if this happened but just because someone has stress doesn't mean they will shoot someone. Many people have lots of stress and they are not inclined to shoot everyone. This is an extreme case of being over-stressed while having guns. \\\" What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute.\\\" No, they can't. We have so much security these days that there are very few guns besides in the few crime-popular cities such as Lose Angeles, Oakland, etc. Thus, guns should remain legal. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.\",\n \"Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Mental patients don't have gun rights, end of story, that is too extreme, mon cher, and I am a moderate Republican saying this.\",\n \"Americans have a right to own firearms Many states have made laws to allow people to defend their property from those that would attempt to steal it such as the case in Texas. Why should we allow someone to hijack our car when we could be the ones to scare them off? To put it in better perspective for you, what if a large man tried kidnapping a young woman (21 years old) are you suggesting that she should not have the right to own a firearm to defend her life? She doesn't know if hes going to kill her and you make the assumption that a carjacker would not try to kill or kidnap either. \\\"you allow him and call the police because that is their work\\\" You stated it perfectly, the police are rarely there when a crime is taking place, they almost always show up after the crime is committed. Imagine if all the women that were brutally raped and murdered had a firearm to defend themselves. There would be far less kidnappings. Americans\\\" is a general term used to describe people. I had assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to people legally old enough to own a firearm. If someone breaks into your house with your children sleeping are you going to ask the person if he will let you call the cops? Or would you rather have a firearm to fend him off? By choosing not to defend yourself you give the power to the criminal. Those that abide the law should not have to fear criminals, it is the criminals that should fear empowered law abiding citizens.\",\n \"Conceal carry laws by private citizens \\\" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking \\\"oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon\\\" Really? I'm not so sure.. \\\" It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.\",\n \"Gun Control By my opponent's own admission in the comments, they are advocating for no gun control/regulation whatsoever. This is lunacy. No background checks, for example, would mean a known criminal could walk into a store and buy a gun. No limitations on types of arms available to civilians means someone could buy a heavy machine gun or grenade launcher. No requirements to go through an open or concealed carry safety class means people could just carry guns around without having to demonstrate competence with them. This would be no different than letting people drive cars without passing a driving test. The list could go on, but I'll stop here for now and see how Con responds.\",\n \"I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Conceal-Carry is already legal in some places. Mentally ill people probably would not be able to pass a background check. There has been no increase of violent crime. Since 1990, As concealed-carry goes up by tens of thousands per year, Violent crime has gone down 50%. This includes murders and rapes. 90% of cases criminals get their guns illegally, Probably through a friend or the black market.\",\n \"Conceal carry laws by private citizens No not really my point is quite simple....whatever the law regarding concealment an officer can and is likely to continue to use the same old excuses. Your angle is confusing, it appears as though you accept that unlawful police killings occur but you feel that the excuses they use are passable because people are allowed to carry concealed guns. I'm sorry but as you are aware guns are easy to come bye...right? Then why would the police feel more comfortable if people are not allowed to conceal them. Don't you think that the officer may still feel a bit anxious that someone is not actually abiding to the rules. Come on drop me out!\",\n \"Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!\",\n \"Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: \\\"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. \\\" By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated \\\"with correct instruction\\\", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \\\" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \\\"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \\\" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) \\\"As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. \\\" Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.\",\n \"CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities Pro said: \\\"Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns.\\\"This is a concession. If it's fine for a university to ban guns, then that directly contradicts the resolution that CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges/universities.The only exception Pro admits is when there is \\\"an imminent threat\\\". I will discuss this exception further below.Pro said: \\\"I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW.\\\"It's not okay to change the resolution of a debate halfway through. This debate is not only about state bans, but about whether CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges and universities, which includes all the laws and regulations in relation to that.An imminent threatPro has conceded that it's fine for guns to be banned on college and university campuses when there is no imminent threat. However, I suggest that when there IS an imminent threat to the safety of staff and students, it would be far better for security to be maintained by trained law-enforcement professionals.Further, I suggest that when there is an imminent threat to safety, that students and staff should stay away from campus until it is resolved. 2nd amendmentThe 2nd amendment is not an unconditional right. Prisoners, the mentally ill, children, etc., are not allowed to carry guns and there are restictions on the types of weapons people are allowed to own (1). Furthermore, most states have restrictions on taking weapons to places such as daycare centres, schools, hospitals and government offices (2).As was pointed out in United States vs Miller, the 2nd amenment only guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms only in \\\"any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia\\\". (1)Therefore, exceptions to the right to bear arms are consistent with the 2nd amendment. Pro has conceded this point already when he said that it was fine for universities to maintain bans on guns when there is no imminent threat.(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu...(2) http://www.salon.com...\",\n \"Permitting university students to carry handguns on campus would reduce campus violence. Attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 would have ended more quickly, or even been thwarted, had Cho's fellow students been armed with and trained to handle handguns. If a prospective gunman (or woman) knew beforehand that a large portion of the population they are considering attacking is armed, it reasons to believe that they might reconsider their anticipated actions. Most university students are old enough to carry and should be permitted to do so. http://opencarry.com...\",\n \"Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind OK. Let's unpack some of the things you mentioned. You said longer waiting periods for certain assault rifles. Can you define assault rifle for me? Also, when you said 3-5 days for high-powered weapons- Can you define what a high powered weapon is? When you use the example of the fingerprint scanner- I think you have the right idea. I have not looked into the security of the guns too much but my first thoughts are the expensiveness to produce such things. I do agree about generally increasing security though-yes. For instance, I would like to see much better background checks. When you say America has an increase in mass shootings- that is what concealed carry is for. For example, in the Texas church shooting, the shooter got killed with an assault rifle by a civilian. This is also why teachers should have guns to prevent mass shootings in schools. But all in all, I completely agree with your premise. Guns should be allowed by law-abiding citizens, but there should restrictions to stop them from falling into he wrong hands. However, there will be some instances in which the shooter has not had any prior history or family history- so you simply can not prevent that, which is why i believe in teachers having guns and in concealed carry laws. I think we agree on the basic premise of your argument though-thoughts?\",\n \"Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer.\",\n \"The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.\",\n \"Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Welcome to the debate. I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens. I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole. As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.\",\n \"Loosen gun control Gun control, probably one of the most heated controversies in politics today,and I think a fun topic to debate on. The constitution on the United States of America allows citizens the right to bare arms. And yes today citizens are allowed to bare arms, however not extensively. I am sick of hearing about these women being ripped to pieces by homicidal men, gun control should be allowed on a more loose system. If you cannot carry a gun in areas where you are more likley going to use it what's the point in carrying one? Gun control should have a more thorough search and background system and then that should be the extent of it allow citizens who's background is clean and has children who are not mentally ill or have a history of a mental sickness background carry weapons extensively. If 3/5 women carried small caliber pistols the sexual and homicidal crime rate were these animals victimize women will drop rapidly.\",\n \"Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Con makes a distinction between foresight and hindsight. While we do not have the advantage of analyzing the future from the perspective of hindsight, we can apply lessons learned from the past to future expectations. With an increase of people carrying guns, we haven't seen a dramatic increase in crime rates, as Con would have us expect. Instead, we have seen drastic reductions in murder rates. This serves to show that it is not strictly a probability that a person will commit a crime. People are individuals, not probabilities, and a peaceful person won't become violent simply because they have a handgun.Con's position is that we should limit the accessibility of handguns, but we have already established a baseline of regulations to keep handguns out of the hands of citizens who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. Not allowing citizens to carry handguns in this instance will only reduce the number of responsible citizens with handguns. Criminals will still be able to get handguns from illegal sources.It is clear that having a handgun doesn't change a person's propensity toward violence or crime. If that were the case, we would expect to see a higher percentage of police killing and robbing than ordinary citizens. Indeed, with the drastic increases in carry permits available to the public, we haven't seen crime rates soar. Instead, we have seen murder rates fall 42% since 1987. This fits in place well with the study by Kleck and Gertz showing that guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime.In conclusion, we can see that citizens carrying handguns can reduce crimes in many ways. Firstly, it allows citizens to defend themselves when attacked. Secondly, it allows citizens to help defend others who are in peril. Thirdly, the more guns responsible citizens carry, the more hesitant a criminal will be in trying to rob somebody. I have not only provided hypothetical explanations, but statistical analysis of murder rates, and reports of defensive gun uses. Con's position is based mainly off of probabilities, but a framework of probabilities that is at odds with actual occurrences must inherently be erroneous.\",\n \"Gun Rights Both my mother and Father are retired New York city Cops. My mother and I believe that certain people like cops and Convent store Owner and those who carry large amount of money should have the right to own a gun. However My father and other people I have talk this issue about disagree with me and believe that I am being unfair and that I am playing favoritism.\",\n \"Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school I believe teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school because it can lower the risk of casualties of school shootings and can make students and staff feel safer. Yes teachers would need to go through a background check and a fire arm training class before hand, as well as a test for mental stability. In the long run it would help save students lives around the world.\",\n \"ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes 323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN). Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)\",\n \"Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime - Clarification -Many terms may be used in this debate. One of them may be the term ‘shall issue’ laws. Shall issue laws are a form of liberalized concealed carry law. They generally mean if you meet the criteria of the law—including but not limited to—being 21 years of age or not having a violent criminal record, you will obtain this law. If you pass training and pass all requirements, you obtain the law.This is in contrast to may issue, meaning if you pass all of the requirements, you still may not be licensed as you need a ‘good reason’.No issue is self-explanatory. Concealed carry is banned, and you will never be issued a concealed carry permit. BOP I would argue both sides should be given equal burden of proofs. Although I am affirmative, CON is now against the status quo. Nearly all states have passed shall issue laws, and a few (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Vermont) have no restrictions [8]. Therefore, I have a burden to prove that concealed carry laws do reduce crime, and CON must prove they either have no discernable effect or increase crime.C1) Deterrence theoryThis will provide theoretical reasons as to why concealed carry laws would decrease crime.Deterrence theory began in the 1960s under the groundbreaking research by now deceased economist Gary Becker. His work in the field of criminology is almost unmatched. His theory is now known as deterrence theory. The theory holds criminals are rational actors and will act rationally towards incentives and punishments. Indeed, Becker finds many criminals are in crime solely for payment: money. But others see the emotional thrill overweighs the costs of punishment. Essentially, criminals react to different forgings. If there is increased threat to them, they back down and are less likely to commit criminal acts [1].This applies to concealed carry in a fairly obvious manner. If citizens are able to arm themselves, this increases the cost to the criminal. Citizens may now react violently towards criminal actors, either ending in a failed attack or even death. Armed citizens also could increase the chances which criminals are caught. Therefore, concealed carry laws significantly increase the risk of committing various crimes. Based on Becker’s theory, we should see a decrease in violent crime if people are now allowed to arm themselves.And concealed carry holds more of a deterrent than open carry. Open carry can and does deter criminals. However, it also means if you are a criminal you know who to avoid. This means either you will attack at a different place, or merely murder the carrier and then harm the defenseless masses. Concealed carry means the criminal is unaware as to who is armed. The criminal does not know when a civilian has the capacity to end his life. The criminal does not know who to attack first. The criminal is the one who will be taken by surprise. Although open carry does reduce crime, concealed carry is one of the strongest deterrence methods a civilian can possess.C2) How firearms affect crime ratesFirearms have two effects on crime. First, they can increase crime. They do this by arming criminals. This can empower them to commit more crime or make the severity of their crimes more severe. However, firearms can also reduce crime. Arming citizens will both deter crime but also reduce the impact of crime. Defensive gun uses, for example, would reduce the impact of the crime, even though the crime is still attempted. The question is which effect is more important. Overall, firearms have been demonstrated to have little effect on crime, and gun control is largely ineffective. Gun control primarily affects law abiding citizens, meaning they even have the potential to increase crime [2].So why is this relevant? Obviously, laws which give firearms primarily to law abiding citizens will reduce crime. Concealed carry laws chiefly arm law abiding citizens. This means the second effect—the crime reducing effect—is amplified by concealed carry laws.C3) Empirical research on right to carry lawsWhat does the empirical literature reveal to us as to how concealed carry laws affect crime rates?The research begins with two scholars, John Lott and David Mustard. Their study took into account every single country in the United States. Their study found concealed carry laws would save the economy 6.2 billion dollars each year due to reduced crime impacts. Murder fell 7.7%, rape fell 5.3%, aggravated assault fell 7.01%, and robbery fell 2.2% [3].John Lott’s work received criticism—which I am sure my opponent will mention. Regardless, the study received much praise, including from award winning criminologist Gary Kleck. Lott’s study was the first to utilize the entire country. Before him, studies would focus on small non-geographically representative areas. They studies every shall issue law passed between 1977 and 1992. Lott’s study attempted to control for many factors other than merely changes in shall issue laws in order to obtain the true effects—previous research did not. The study was also the first to focus on all types of crime, whereas studies before focused only on homicide. Although Kleck remained fairly skeptical of the studies conclusions, he noted the study proved concealed carry laws did not increase crime. He also conceded the study was the best designed study of publication to date [4].There has been a few literature reviews on the topic. A recent one by John Lott in the Maryland Law Review summarizes the recent literature. Little research was found as to whether or not concealed carry laws increase accidental death rates. Of the evidence currently in existence, there seems to be no relationship between concealed carry laws and accidental deaths or suicides. There have been a total of 29 studies published by economists and criminologists on the issue. Of those, 18 supported the idea concealed carry laws reduced crime, 10 claimed no effect, and only one found an increase in crime. There are 5 different methods which have concluded concealed carry laws reduce crime. Authors of different political views have contributed to the idea that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. If you extend the meta-analysis to include non-refereed studies, there are 21 studies which claim concealed carry laws reduce crime, 11 which claim no effect, and 3 claiming an increase. 60% of the literature, therefore, supports my position. Of the ones which claim increased crime, they have been found to be severely flawed. Ironically, they accuse Lott’s work of having coding errors. However, it was on a paper which he was not an author, and the coding errors did not affect the results. The ironic part is that their work is now notorious for coding errors, including having the same county in the dataset multiple times. Scholars have failed to reproduce their work, meaning it is highly unlikely these laws increase crime. The research claiming no effect also often makes errors—such as truncation bias—and when the errors are accounted for, they also find no increase in crime. Lott concludes, “the consensus is the same: right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.” [5][6].Some research even indicated concealed carry laws reduce police deaths. Before a law, states have a slightly higher chance of police deaths via shooting. After shall issue laws are passed, there is a slightly lower chance of being murdered if you are a police officer. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms does not endanger police officers—in fact, it may even protect them [7].Conclusion Research on general firearms tells us one thing: Guns can both increase and decrease crime. Concealed carry laws primarily arm citizens, indicating the decreasing crime effects would become amplified. This means there should be large decreases in crime after shall-issue laws are passed. Research on general crime also gives credence to the idea. Criminals are rational actors and respond to incentives and costs. Concealed carry laws increases the cost for criminals, meaning they would be more hesitant in attacking citizens who may be armed. And research on concealed carry laws themselves almost unanimously argue these laws reduce crime. Unless my opponent really refutes C3, he loses the debate.[1] http://www.nber.org...[2] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...[3] http://www.law.uchicago.edu...[4] Gary Kleck. Targeting Guns, pp 371-372.[5] http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu...[6] John Lott. More guns Less Crime (2010).[7] http://papers.ssrn.com...[8] http://upload.wikimedia.org...\",\n \"Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life. Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning, why should said individual carry the gun at home or on their person anyway, people don't need to have the right to KEEP firearms. You don't need to own a firearm to take part in recreational activities. The firearm could be secured in the clubhouse, and the part about bearing arms generally refers to bearing arms against people, not deer, pieces of paper and clay disks. Your argument is invalid. I look forward to your rebuttal!\",\n \"gun rights should NOT be taken away. Here is what you said \\\"but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes.\\\" -You can withhold the right to own a gun to a limit amount of people to try to limit a crime such as, withhold some guns (beyond automatic) to people only those with a hunting license (or military) can get a gun only those over the age of __ no more handguns to those without a military license some guidelines that makes the right to bear arms a privilege this would reduce crime yet allow people to protect themselves \\\"If you do not have a license you should not be able to own any more than a simple small caliber hand gun. not every thing should need a license.\\\" First let me address the license. I mis-understood. The license belongs to those selling firearms. Not those buying. So you can ignore that point. Since that is the case, I believe, as said above, I believe a hunting or military license should be needed. \\\"If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime.\\\" This is what currently happens, but that does not stop crime. Why? Because the right to bear arms is a right. It should be a privilege. To stop crime\",\n \"DC's handgun ban threatens citizens' ability to defend themselves on the streets The majority of violent encounters occur on the street, versus in the home. Hand guns are a particularly important means to protecting one self on the street. This is primarily the case because handguns can be easily carried by law-abiding civilians, and concealed so as to avoid scaring other citizens. Shotguns and rifles do not share these characteristics.\",\n \"Citizens should have guns Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.\",\n \"Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime In this debate, I will argue that allowing (shall issue laws, for example) CCW will decrease violent crime in the United States. My opponent, as CON, will be arguing against this proposition, that CCW laws have no effect, or increase, violent crime rates. Definitions:Concealed Carry: concealed carry weapon, a practice in which a person carries a weapon, generally a firearm, hidden on their person. This generally (except in states, such as Alaska and Arizona) requires a license. Shall issue: A 'shall' issue law is a variant of law related to the legality of CCW practice. This means if you apply for a license, and meet the criteria (including, but not limited to, 21 and over in age, no criminal record), you will obtain the license. The authority will not exert discretion to awarding the licenses. May issue: Similar to shall issue, except that the authorities exert discretion on who obtains the licenses. In shall issue, the WILL give the permit if you meet the criteria, and as the name implies, they MAY give the license, the sheriffs department, for example, can deny certain applicants which pass the preliminary tests. No issue: CCW is banned, and only rarely will grant CCW permits. My opponent will be, essentially, arguing that lenient laws (shall issue and may issue) either do not effect crime, or increase the crime rate. I will argue that lenient laws will decrease violent crime.First round is for acceptance http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military \\\"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership,\\\" said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost � of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, \\\"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\\\" This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, \\\"Guns don't kill people; people kill people.\\\"\",\n \"In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.\",\n \"Loosen gun control Apparently you listened to nothing I said, first of all the idea that a homicidal man purchasing a weapon legally is absurd no one with a misdemeanor or any type of mental history or illness is capable of such a purchase. My argument is that we should tighten the gun purchasing and licensing like a better background search including yourself and family members, but those able to purchase one should have little to no restrictions. You give me one individual who went threw a background search and then used a concealed weapon illegally and your point will be valid until then your just spewing opinions. The problem with firearms is that guns are able to be purchased illegally easily. Tighten the gun selling but those able to buy one should have no restrictions on carrying it as long as its concealed. Also your point about the constitution being written in \\\"different\\\" times is also stupidity. The times we live in now are much much more violent and dangerous than when the declaration was written. Crime is so high in the United States because there is no capital punishment anymore. It is more important than ever for citizens (women especially) to be carrying a concealed weapon, with the Bush administration out of the white house soon and the democratic party taking over the threat of another terrorist attack is almost a probability. The truth is these times are much more dangerous to the citizen and the right to bear arms is a right that should and must be implied today.\",\n \"The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns. >>> The problem with your argument is if the goverment allowed all citizens to carry guns mentally handicapped unstable people and murderers would all have guns, a citizen is a member of a state or community. +++ This is untrue. A gun concealment law bans minors and mentally handicapped from carrying guns. +++ Mentally handicapped individuals pose less of a threat to society than an unarmed citizenry. A defenseless citizenry will be threatened by criminals constantly. A criminal's biggest fear is an armed victim. Criminals advantage from a defenseless citizenry. +++ You already conceded that gun control is uneffective. We are in concession. You can't rescind your statement. >>> laws are made by the state to protect those from dangers no state has banned everyone from holding guns so you say all citizens regardless of mental or physical health. +++ Alaska bans arms in bars, D.C. bans arms, Illinois bans concealment, etc. Gun control does not work and my opponent NEVER REBUTTED CONSTITUTIONALITY. I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument.\",\n \"Loosen gun control As hard as it is for my opponent to admit he's wrong... he is, what he fails to realize is that a bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter who shoots the gun, there will always be less harmful ways to disarm a mugger/rapist (May i suggest a tsar or mace) that are just as effective and (If used properly) not deadly at all. Does it matter who shoots the gun let it be a woman or a criminal, a life is a life. As for you saying that the case i provided was not sufficient proof i disagree strongly saying that this convicted fellon was able to posses a gun and pass the mandatory background check that the police gave him when they confiscated the weapon's so if he got the guns back, which he did, that must mean they were legal guns, and i'm pretty sure that shooting someone is a crime. I'm not even going to get into the complications of getting all of the illegal guns off the street, but i would like to say it would be impossible to do so. As for his argument being stronger, he sort of just spewed ideas and thoughts that had very little in common. Gun control should be tightened for several reasons including but not limited to: 1. The right to bear arms does not refer to individual use but to the right for your government to bear arms, so the idea that you have a right to own a gun is \\\"Absurd\\\" 2. even with state-of-the-art background checks there will always be some who manage to fake their way through. 3. The idea of Millions of Civilians, who have no training with weapon's, being aloud to carry them in their pockets where ever they want is like running with a stick of dynamite in your back pocket (It's dangerous) 4. Civilians don't need to carry guns because we have well established government agencies (i.e. FBI, Police, CIA, about 100 other three initial agencies, and for more major threats the military)\",\n \"There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.\",\n \"Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.\",\n \"Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. I'm very moderate on guns. I will never use or own a gun for any reason, but I support some level of gun rights for mentally healthy adults to use for lawful reasons. Self defense is a right.\",\n \"Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime Why shouldn't I get to know if someone is carrying?If someone is acting like a lunatic I might tolerate that behavior if they are unarmed, but if they are armed I want to be able to get away.Instead of allowing concealed carry, only open carry should be allowed. The individual is more advantaged by open carry than concealed anyways. If you are openly carrying the criminal will know and avoid you. With concealed carry since most citizens aren't carrying criminals are unlikely to suspect that you are carrying. You want to avoid trouble in the first place if you can. That's why open carry makes more sense than concealed carry in deterring crime.Furthermore there is the risk of accidents and the right for citizens to know you are carrying so they can avoid you to avoid accidents.\",\n \"Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : http://nation.time.com... Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. \\\"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department\\\"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.\\\" This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.\",\n \"Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer. Nikil Arora. \\\"If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?\\\" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: \\\"The BBC news on Thursday night featured a report on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago gun ban; litigation launched after the successful case of DC v Heller, which overturned a similar outright prohibition on handguns in Washington DC. [...] the BBC’s report was worth watching. It largely focussed on the effect of laws already in force in Wisconsin, which allow the open-carry, but not concealed-carry, of handguns. It showed how responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying guns openly leads to people both feeling and being safer.\\\"\",\n \"should normal americans be able to buy and keep guns I appreciate the point raised by you about individual safety, but I disagree with the solution you gave. For safety reasons, the law should be made strict or the policemen should be trained to be made more responsible and prepared or in any other way the law and order conditions should be made strong. That is the proper solution. Giving away the permission to hand over the guns to everyone will just increase such crimes because every citizen may not use them for safety reasons only. And this just cant be a solution because, in a sense, you are asking to teach robbery to common man in order to prevent robbery? How does this make sense? I am not sure of decreasing robbery in such case, but definitely many will use that knowledge in wrong direction. And how will you justify it's impression on young children? When they see guns at their place, what should be expected from them in their adolescence? And then we cry, 'Crime is increasing'...\",\n \"Gun Free Zone on College Campus I do not think that \\\"everybody\\\" should be disarmed and I doubt you will find anyone willing to make that argument. My argument is that while I support a persons right to carry a gun, but I also believe that a school should have the right to decide whether or not they want firearms on their property. I think that just like people should have the right to carry firearms, people and properties should have the right to decide it they want guns on there property. In my opinion the fact that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm does not negate the fact that people have the right to say they don't want firearms on their property. Also, the fact that a public university is \\\"public\\\" property doesn't mean that it has to abide to the same laws as the public places you mentioned. I too will get more into stats and facts in later rounds but for now i just want to keep it short. I look forward to arguing with you.\",\n \"I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. \\\"Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. \\\" Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.\",\n \"18 year olds with concealed handguns Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?\",\n \"Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod. So, people are paranoid because it's incredibly likely something will go down? I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon, and I think that if you do, you should know how to use it. The people with guns that aren't idiots aren't just paranoid morons, they're just ready to defend themselves. Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo. People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as \\\"weak\\\" by people that don't agree with them. How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.\",\n \"Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. My opponent forfeits her round, extend arguments.\",\n \"Open carry is vulnerable to attacker trying to take weapon \\\"The case AGAINST open carry firearms.\\\" OMFG Alaska. April 27th, 2010: \\\"I support our second amendment, but I am against people feeling empowered to carry their legally permitted weapons openly and here is why: many aren't trained to retain total control of their own weapons and there may come a time when somebody is able to grab it away from them and use it against innocent bystanders. Americans are used to seeing police openly carrying firearms. But because they are uniformed and easily identifiable and their position in society still commands some level of respect from most of society, most would never dream of overpowering or subduing a police officer in an attempt to grab their weapon away from them and then use it against innocents. Not so for some schlub picking his nose in a Def Leppard t-shirt, who may or may not have had the proper training in order to maintain control of their own weapon. Some crazy asshole may get it in his head that Mr. Nose Picker doesn't look all that tough and that he could probably wrest Mr. N. P.'s crappy little 9mm away from him and then use it to cause some righteous anarchy. And that is it in a nutshell. Gun control in this case means maintaining control of who is in possession of ones own weapon. I am not convinced that the majority of Americans are wholly prepared to do exactly that, which is why I'd prefer that those who choose to carry a legally registered firearm keep it concealed.\\\"\",\n \"Conceal carry laws by private citizens I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.\",\n \"Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime As Robert Cottrol, JD, PhD, Professor of Law and History at George Washington University, wrote in the article \\\"Gun Control Is Racist, Sexist, and Classist\\\" published in the Sept. 1999 issue of American Enterprise: \\\"In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good. .. [A right to bear arms] says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community. This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise. \\\" In other words, concealed carry laws are very beneficial to the community. It allows people to protect others. Here are some statistics from Campuscarry. com: 1. At the start of the 2010 fall semester, 14 Colorado community colleges (38 campuses) began allowing licensed concealed carry on campus. 2. Since the fall semester of 2006, Utah state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of Utah's nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses). 3. Concealed carry has been allowed on the two campuses of Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO, and Pueblo, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. 4. After allowing concealed carry on campus for an average of more than three years (as of June 2011), none of these 26 colleges (71 campuses) has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides) or a single resulting gun accident. When we look at the concealed carry movement as a whole, from its beginnings in the late 1980s to the present, we see a huge increase in the number of people with carry permits, from around one million in 1987 to around six million today. Now here's the kicker: during this same time frame, violent crime has fallen to record lows in America, hovering nationwide at rates not seen since the early 1960s. Historic numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens, who are increasingly carrying those guns in public, and a dramatic, ongoing drop in violent crime. Now there's something to think about! Tactically speaking, the element of surprise is a great thing. If someone doesn't know you have a firearm, then they can't tactically adjust them selves for that. If they were to try and rob you and you pull a firearm they didn't know about, that surprises most criminals, not all, but most. Something they were not expecting has the potential to rattle cages. Plus when you are out in public I think people are less likely to be jumpy or nervous if they don't see a firearm on your side and no badge on your shirt. Again, not all people would respond that way I wouldn't think, but some might. . http://concealedguns.procon.org... . http://www.campuscarry.com... . http://blog.chegg.com... . http://www.usconcealedcarry.net... . http://www.usacarry.com...\",\n \"Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. I'm not sure exactly why you have the resolved: in the title. Hand guns are very useful everyone. People can use them to defend their selves against both humans and animals. Our forefathers wanted the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment to protect against totalitarian governments. \\\"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\\\" As you can see bears' arms are important to Americans. http://constitution.findlaw.com... http://www.mrwallpaper.com...\",\n \"Concealed Carry on College Campuses Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.\",\n \"18 year olds with concealed handguns because it is wrong if the 18 yo has it because he cold hurt someone or kill another or himself end of discussion\",\n \"I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind You mention the NRA a lot in your argument. We could talk about NRA all day long, but I'd rather we stick with the core of the argument. It is ridiculous for cities to charge you for not giving them your gun. People are the ones killing people; guns are not. I think we should have more security to actually get the guns and to access them. Again, Concealed Carry owners break the law 6% less than the police! They are the most responsible citizens in America. When you bring up all the mass shootings: This is why teachers should have guns, to stop the shooter. It would only be teachers who already conceal and carry, just like they do at the mall, taking a walk, or doing anything. You can't deny the fact that there were multiple armed security guards in the Parkland shooting, yet NONE of them did anything to stop it! So your saying to leave it to the cops. If someone starts shooting at you, the cops aren't right there to stop it. You can shoot back if you have a gun, or other armed civilians can. In the Texas church shooting, a man stopped the shooter with an AR-15. In a Tennessee church shooting, a good Samaritan stopped the shooter and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. These are just to name a few. Concealed-Carry people are more law-abiding than the police and the most responsible people. By the time the cops arrive, it will be to late, as we have seen in so many of these shootings. Again, more guns save lives than take them. In places where guns were banned, murder rates spiked up. This is because of bad guys using knives or getting guns illegally. If the government takes away our second-amendment right, we will have no way to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.\",\n \"The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word \\\"infringed\\\". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...\",\n \"All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license. Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it. Burden of proof is shared.\",\n \"Conceal to carry I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.\",\n \"Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod. You come off very anti-gun. I apologize for my assumption. Now, to the argument here. Who's to say that someone shouldn't carry a gun to feel safe? It seems to me that someone would be more likely to be able to help a situation, if the need should arise, if they were armed rather than attempting to user their fists to deliver justice. Correct? Sure, there's some people that shouldn't be using guns, but there's always someone that manages to use something they shouldn't. Like a car, for example. Basically, I'm getting that you really just want people to have to undergo proper training in order to carry a gun publicly. That makes perfect sense, yes. We definitely shouldn't let just any old jerk carry around a gun because they want to feel safe. But we shouldn't say that people don't have a right to be safe either. Guns don't(usually) turn people into complete wimps, and people don't usually want guns because they're wimps. It all comes back to safety. Why would you tackle a gunman willing to kill you? It would make a lot more sense for someone that was carrying to actually do something to him. That doesn't make the carrier a wimp, it makes them a logical human being.\",\n \"Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.\",\n \"Conceal carry laws by private citizens Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.\",\n \"Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.\",\n \"I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.\",\n \"I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.\",\n \"Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.\",\n \"I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an \\\"assault weapons\\\" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.\",\n \"Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources: http://gunvictimsaction.org... http://www.justfacts.com...\",\n \"Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources: http://concealedcampus.org...\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":29,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Is obesity a disease?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Sports and Obesity\nSports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you\"re a Jew.","Obesity is a disease.\nObesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.","School should ban junk food\nBanning junk food in school would be an effective way to reduce the high rates of obesity in America. The health benefits of this act outweighs the any costs of limiting choices.","Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...\nThe National Institute of Health (USA) spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link.","Obesity is a disease.\nMajority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.","Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.\nMy opponent con states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.\"He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat\" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)","Fast food should be banned in the U.S!\nThough my opponent stated that people in the United States are constantly moving and have no time to cook at home so they rely on fast food, I strongly disagree due to there being various ways to eat healthy such as meal prepping the day before or taking healthy snacks or lunch. Yes, fast food is quick and cheap but your life and health are more important than money. According to MD health, \"Extra sugar and food dye is put into fast food to make it more appealing, particularly to younger viewers. Many believe that these addicting ingredients are contributing to the growing obesity epidemic' \"Most of the food additives and preservatives have negative effects on the body. One of the harmful ingredients is carcinogenics that can even cause cancer\". \"Fast food is often filled with ingredients such as soya, salt, cheese or mayonnaise and is often deep fried, which adds a lot of extra calories without adding any additional nutrition. Given the high amount of calories, it will take a significant amount of exercise to burn off the calories you take in. For example, it would take 7 hours of exercise to burn off the calories in a large Coke, fries and a Big Mac from McDonalds. Consuming this high level of calories without burning them off can lead to additional health issues\". \"In addition to the medical disadvantages of fast food, the production and selling of junk food puts a significant negative impact on the environment. The amount of resources necessary to raise the meat for fast food products creates a shortage of resources around the world. For example, every pound of hamburger we consume takes 2500 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain to produce, say nothing of the land needed to raise the cattle and the grains to feed them. The animals raised to make fast food meat products are often fed antibiotics and a poor diet that causes the animals to be underdeveloped. These antibiotics and growth hormones can be passed on to those who consume the meat afterward, leading to negative health effects. Some have reported growing extra breast tissue or developing damage to the immune system from eating fast food on a regular basis\". According to an article published on May 05, 2018 by UCLA, \"Food is like a pharmaceutical compound that affects the brain,\" said Fernando G\"mez-Pinilla, a UCLA professor of neurosurgery and physiological science who has spent years studying the effects of food, exercise and sleep on the brain. \"Diet, exercise and sleep have the potential to alter our brain health and mental function. This raises the exciting possibility that changes in diet are a viable strategy for enhancing cognitive abilities, protecting the brain from damage and counteracting the effects of aging. \"Excess calories can reduce the flexibility of synapses and increase the vulnerability of cells to damage by causing the formation of free radicals. Moderate caloric restriction could protect the brain by reducing oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, G\"mez-Pinilla said\". According to MSN, In 2013, the Dr Oz Show in the US claimed that soda fountains are the dirtiest places in fast food joints. This was backed up by Dr Sean O\"Keefe who agreed that bacteria, germs and mold grow in environments rich in sugar, ice and air. This makes hard-to-clean soda fountains veritable breeding grounds for food poisoning. According to Eat This ,Not That \"The high calories in fast food are accompanied by low nutritional content. Too much of that, and your body will begin to lack the necessary nutrients it needs to function properly. \"Your body is temporarily full with empty foods that don\"t provide nourishment, so even though you may have eaten a lot of calories, you won\"t be satisfied for long,\" says Amy Shapiro, MS, RD, CDN, founder of Real Nutrition NYC. According to an article published by Physcology Today, \"We hold this truth to be self-evident: that Americans are seeing their waistlines expanding more than ever, with no known end to our increasing girth. The stereotype of the fat American has been reduced to a punch line the world over, disguising the dire statistics that this country leads regarding obesity and threat to national healthcare and overall quality of life. We are the fattest industrialized nation across the world, with 2/3 of Americans qualifying as overweight or obese. The obesity epidemic has spread to our nation\"s youth, with 1 out of 3 children born in 2000 or after projected to develop type-2 diabetes across his or her lifetime\". With this being said, People in the United States should be more aware of what fast food does to their body and their health. My opponent stated that society and their younger generations rely on fast food and that people should realize that others with busy schedules need to eat even if its NOT \"HOME-MADE' but my opponent forgot to mention that its \"NOT HEALTHY\". YES, people with busy schedules need to eat due to it being a necessity of life but there are other options than Fast Food. Fast food has many disadvantages that causes major life threatening issues and with this being said FAST FOOD SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE U.S! http://www.md-health.com... http://newsroom.ucla.edu... https://www.eatthis.com... http://www.healthdata.org...- problem-among https://www.psychologytoday.com...","how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments\nI do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)","Obesity In America should we do something\nyes they have to do something but we have to urge them to do something no one will just get up and do it we the people have to help with obesity","Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity\nI really disagree that parents should be blamed for their child's obesity. It's not like the parents are shoving the food down their child's throats. Kids are soley responsible for what they consume. Kids dont just eat at home. They can eat at school, with their friends at McDonalds, ect. So childrens parents arent the main influences in what thier children eat.","DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools\n(INTRODUCTION) I would like to clarify that we mean GRADE SCHOOL! I am sorry for that miss, and I do hope you accept this definition. If not, please propose your own definition of the resolution, though remember there is NO ridiculos semantics. CONTENTION 1: OBESITY RATE IN CHILDRENChild obesity has been a problem around the world. What is obesity? “The condition of being grossly fat or overweight.” (taken from google, not sure where they get there definitions) Now how exactly is this bad for an obese person’s health? “Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.” {1} {2} “Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.” {1} {2} “Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.\" {1} {2} Want to hear something shocking? Well, it turns out that out of all children, 20% (around) are obese. One in every five children are obese! {1} {2} So now that you know the health risks that obesity comes with, you now need to know how to combat it. With physical activity: “Healthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity”{1} {2} Obviously in gym you get physical activity, and if it is a requirement it will MAKE SURE that these obese children start getting healthier. If it was optional, most of these children would most likely not go to gym, and thus develop the obesity more. So now I ask anyone who is reading this, do you want ( I did the calculations based on the facts provided earlier) 14% of all children to have a major risk for cardiovascular disease? I don’t think so. To slowly lower this number, gym should be a requirement in all grade schools. CONTENTION 2: GYM HELPS YOU THINK In grade school academics, the goal is for you to get smarter, and learn. So what is an effective way to help your brain get working? Your first reaction is mostly ‘well you go to your classes and academic subjects’ but I have reason to believe your reaction could be ‘go to P.E.’ I will provide multiple studies showing why: “Look at the brain functioning after just 20 minutes of walking. Getting kids to move helps strengthen and stimulate their brains. This is why so many recent research studies are showing increased fitness = improved academics. Note: The blue color represents inactivity in the brain.” {3} To see the image go here (sorry my computer can’t post images so I have to give links to them): http://www.debate.org... From the same interesting website came this overwhelming evidence from a different study: They took 3 million children and compared the kids who had a higher fitness level to the corresponding academic level and kids who had a lower fitness level to the corresponding academic level and look what they found: http://www.debate.org... Shocking isn’t it? Here is some more studies: “The California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit. In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed — kids who were more fit performed better academically.” {4} Now, before I run out of space to finish this argument and argument 3, I would like to post one last study under this contention: “Charles Hillman, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, was able to duplicate these findings with 259 third and fifth-grade Illinois students. His team also noticed that two of the tests, BMI and aerobic capacity, were significantly more influential to higher academic scores than the other four fitness factors. Digging deeper, he isolated two groups of 20 students, one fit and the other unfit. They were given cognitive tests of attention, working memory and processing speed while their brain's electrical activity was being measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) test. The fit kids' brains showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, known for its executive function and control” {4} So, just to clarify, if you make gym a REQUIREMENT then the test score of ALL the students will be very likely go up. But if it is optional or even non-existent, then obviously these kids who came to school would not be going to gym and thus not helping the brain enough. When they mean a correlation from fit kids to high academic scores, I want to point out that a major way for a kid to start getting fit starts with gym. Look at this: http://www.debate.org... Alright, on to the next point. CONTENTION 3: GYM REDUCES STRESS IN SCHOOL Stress sucks, it is nerve racking and just really is almost painful. Now let me show you just how much stress sucks. “Stress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases. Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following: Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress. Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually. The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.” {5} Let me break this down a bit. The facts provided are obvious reasons for why stress sucks Let me point out the Alcohol, Drugs, etc… makes it worse. Now, I know this sounds a bit abstract, but just how much do kids in grade school drink, use drugs, etc? “25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol” {6} So, wait, 1 IN 5 KIDS DRINK ALCOHOL? That is horrible! Ok so now how many kids take drugs or smoke? I am going to use marijuana as an example: “7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana” {7} So a HIGH amount of kids drink and use drugs which, if you remember an earlier quote, make existing stress worse, then obviously we need to stop stress before it happens! Now what is an effective way to stop stress before normal kids and drinking and drug using kids get school/social stressed? GYM! “Physical education classes provide the opportunity to participate in sports, exercise and perform other activities that promote physical fitness. These activities release chemicals in your brain known as endorphins, which help produce feelings of calm and relaxation. A study done by the University of Georgia in 2008 showed that people who exercise just 20 minutes a day can decrease their fatigue by 65 percent. If you're feeling tired and stressed out, getting exercise will help refresh you.” {8} POINT. PROVEN. (CONCLUSION) Thank you, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cdc.gov... {2} GO TO {1} AND GO TO REFERENCE 7, 5,6,10, 15, 12, 11, 14 {3} http://www.phitamerica.org... {4} http://www.livescience.com... {5} http://www.webmd.com... {6} http://www.cdc.gov... {7} http://www.drugabuse.gov... {8} http://classroom.synonym.com...","More People Should Fat-Shame Women\nOutline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer \"Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder\"Diabetes \"Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers.\" [2]Heart disease \"Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart.\" [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence \"CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity.\" [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber \"It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake\" [5] Sleep \"Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals.\" [6]. Exercise \" Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%).\" [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com...","Obesity\nIt seems like fast food is almost a daily topic in the news. Whether it is because of their ingredients (such as trans fat), the negative health effects (like diabetes), or being linked to obesity, fast food dominates the headlines. This then begs the question, \"Does fast food cause obesity?\" The simple answer is no. Consuming more calories from food than the body can burn is what causes weight gain. This means that you could eat fast food on a regular basis and not become obese. In fact, you can even lose weight while eating fast food. This, however, requires knowledge of not only how many calories you are burning on a daily basis, but also the calories in the food that you are eating. What Does the Research Say? Fast food is not the cause of obesity in today's society. However, because fast food is typically high in calories and the portions are large, it does promote eating too many calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Beside \"fast food\" there are another causes of obesity: Lack of Energy Balance A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT. Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active. Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use. An Inactive Lifestyle Many people aren't very physically active. One reason for this is that many people spend hours in front of TVs and computers doing work, schoolwork, and leisure activities. In fact, more than 2 hours a day of regular TV viewing time has been linked to overweight and obesity. Environment Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include: •Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active. •Oversized food portions. People are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity. •Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly. Genes and Family History Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese. Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment. Health Conditions Some hormone problems may cause overweight and obesity, such as underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism), Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Underactive thyroid is a condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone. Lack of thyroid hormone will slow down your metabolism and cause weight gain. You'll also feel tired and weak. Cushing's syndrome is a condition in which the body's adrenal glands make too much of the hormone cortisol. Cushing's syndrome also can develop if a person takes high doses of certain medicines, such as prednisone, for long periods. People who have Cushing's syndrome gain weight, have upper-body obesity, a rounded face, fat Emotional Factors Some people eat more than usual when they're bored, angry, or stressed. Over time, overeating will lead to weight gain and may cause overweight or obesity. Smoking Some people gain weight when they stop smoking. One reason is that food often tastes and smells better after quitting smoking. Another reason is because nicotine raises the rate at which your body burns calories, so you burn fewer calories when you stop smoking. However, smoking is a serious health risk, and quitting is more important than possible weight gain. Lack of Sleep Research shows that lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity. For example, one study of teenagers showed that with each hour of sleep lost, the odds of becoming obese went up. Lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity in other age groups as well. People who sleep fewer hours also seem to prefer eating foods that are higher in calories and carbohydrates, which can lead to overeating, weight gain, and obesity. Sources: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... http://weight-loss.emedtv.com...","Curb childhood Obesity for USA\nI would like to start my debate off with some statistics from: \"http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions >more than a third of American children, aged between six and nineteen are either overweight, or at risk of becoming obese >58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese >Eight out of ten over 25 is Overweight >78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations Obesity Related Diseases >80% of type II diabetes related to obesity >70% of Cardiovascular disease related to obesity >42% breast and colon cancer diagnosed among obese individuals >30% of gall bladder surgery related to obesity >26% of obese people having high blood pressure Childhood Obesity Running Out of Control >New study suggests one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance) >Between 8% - 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. >Of Children diagnosed with Type II diabetes, 85% are obese >60% already have one risk factor for heart disease -Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com The United States of America Is the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a rising epidemic. Children need to be more involved in school activities. and need to eat right to stay healthy. Parents contribute to this rise in weight, they should control what their children eat, not vice versa. This increase in School activities would cost millions of dollars, but isn't it worth it for protecting our youth? Lunch programs are being paid by Farmers and big companies to provide their products in school. Also, companies are making millions by selling food to children that are high in saturated fats and trans fat which cause major health problems in children. therefore, be it resolved, >that the National School Lunch program should shift it's focus from aiding farmers to providing a nutritious lunch for students. therefore be it resolved. >That commercials should exlude characters (ex.Lucky Charm) that seem appealing to youngsters >That schools should include more activities and teach children that these foods are bad for them, and should be taken in small quantities.","Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.\nWhat is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a \"disease\" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!","Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time.\nDear con, you could have given your definitions in earlier rounds but since neither of us did that, I don't see any problem giving my definitions as soon as I could, in this case, in R3.You have been talking about me breaking the proper format rule so much. And I remind you once again, you are the one who started arguing in the wrong round. I mean, what are you even arguing against if the instigator, who is on the affirmative side, hasn't even said anything yet.Then you broke yet another rule of citing your sources at the end of last round in your R3.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance.\"No, being excessively fat, or obese is. \"The best way to describe a fat person, is that they're the size of a car.\"The best way to describe an obese person, not a fat person. (Not in my opinion though, Lamborghini, for example makes some slick narrow super cars)I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'. \"This source tells us that one in 11 deaths are cause by excess fat. Being fat is an efficient way to die.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;Oh, look! You have a source mentioned in the middle of R3! Anyways, I opened it and the first thing I see is the heading (obviously) - \"Britain's obesity death rate\" WHY DOESN'T MY OPPONENT GET I AM NOT SUPPORTING OBESITY! FAT AND OBESE ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE MEDICAL SENSE! The Google definition of obese is \"GROSSLY FAT\" i.e. \"RIDICULOUSLY FAT\". Yes, ridiculous amounts of fat kills people, Yes, it is a disease. Yes, people who are ridiculously fat should be given medical aid. BUT WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT OBESITY IN THIS DEBATE?I still stand by my words. Being fat is okay. Being obese is wrong. You are speaking against obesity, I am against obesity as well! But don't falsely say that every fat person on this planet is also obese.\"This is detestable and you should be ashamed sir, ASHAMED\"Sure, buddy. I should be ashamed of stating the real facts? Or should I be ashamed because you want me to, since you sense you are losing? I think, you should get the differences between basic English words like obese and fat cleared up. You are confused.\"Obesity is not a paradox\"No, it is not, but 'obesity paradox' is a paradox. It has confused so many people in the medical field. You can't just deny its existence because you don't want it to exist! Although, I still don't support obesity, but I needed to show one case where fat people are fit, and look! There are enough cases to confuse a whole group of medical professionals around the world. My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.In my opinion, and hopefully that of a huge number of people, little knowledge is what is actually a very dangerous thing. I get it, you hate fat people for being fat, you want everyone to have glistening abs, but you shouldn't let your pre formed views come in the way of this debate.\"Certainly it can't be healthy to your mental health being fat, the realisation that you're less attractive to the opposite sex. The opposite sex have deemed you UNFIT through unconscious bias.\"Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either.\"Heart deisease is the number one cause of death in America\" (Use the spell check feature please. Using proper spelling is a rule as well {Con spelled disease as deisease}, not a big deal, but still.)America suffers from obesity, and so people die due to it. I still don't support obesity. I support being moderately fat (I don't even know how many times I will have to mention this)\"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today\" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to \"preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants\". I would like the voters to consider con's providing of a link of a completely unrelated to the debate just for the sake of a silly joke.I would also like the voters to consider that con's argument was about how obesity is bad for people, even after I had stated that I do not support obesity in R3 (quoting myself from R3 - \"I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity\") Apparently, con just chose to ignore me.Quote from source - \"In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight.\"Fat is a killer when in excess. Diseases such as a myriad of heart diseases don't depend only on weight.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have successfully argued and made my points against the contender. I have proved through the arguments that more than one cases exist where fat people are fit. Doing that was the necessary and sufficient condition for proving myself correct to con and the voters. The con has not yet been able to prove that fat people are unfit in every case. He has only proved that obese people are unfit and even that is not 100% true, since the Obesity paradox exists. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope we reach a conclusion on common grounds. Sources will be mentioned at the end of R5 (BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE) I await con's last round of argument before conclusion round. :)"],"string":"[\n \"Sports and Obesity\\nSports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you\\\"re a Jew.\",\n \"Obesity is a disease.\\nObesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.\",\n \"School should ban junk food\\nBanning junk food in school would be an effective way to reduce the high rates of obesity in America. The health benefits of this act outweighs the any costs of limiting choices.\",\n \"Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...\\nThe National Institute of Health (USA) spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link.\",\n \"Obesity is a disease.\\nMajority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.\",\n \"Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.\\nMy opponent con states that \\\"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.\\\"He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that \\\"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat\\\" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)\",\n \"Fast food should be banned in the U.S!\\nThough my opponent stated that people in the United States are constantly moving and have no time to cook at home so they rely on fast food, I strongly disagree due to there being various ways to eat healthy such as meal prepping the day before or taking healthy snacks or lunch. Yes, fast food is quick and cheap but your life and health are more important than money. According to MD health, \\\"Extra sugar and food dye is put into fast food to make it more appealing, particularly to younger viewers. Many believe that these addicting ingredients are contributing to the growing obesity epidemic' \\\"Most of the food additives and preservatives have negative effects on the body. One of the harmful ingredients is carcinogenics that can even cause cancer\\\". \\\"Fast food is often filled with ingredients such as soya, salt, cheese or mayonnaise and is often deep fried, which adds a lot of extra calories without adding any additional nutrition. Given the high amount of calories, it will take a significant amount of exercise to burn off the calories you take in. For example, it would take 7 hours of exercise to burn off the calories in a large Coke, fries and a Big Mac from McDonalds. Consuming this high level of calories without burning them off can lead to additional health issues\\\". \\\"In addition to the medical disadvantages of fast food, the production and selling of junk food puts a significant negative impact on the environment. The amount of resources necessary to raise the meat for fast food products creates a shortage of resources around the world. For example, every pound of hamburger we consume takes 2500 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain to produce, say nothing of the land needed to raise the cattle and the grains to feed them. The animals raised to make fast food meat products are often fed antibiotics and a poor diet that causes the animals to be underdeveloped. These antibiotics and growth hormones can be passed on to those who consume the meat afterward, leading to negative health effects. Some have reported growing extra breast tissue or developing damage to the immune system from eating fast food on a regular basis\\\". According to an article published on May 05, 2018 by UCLA, \\\"Food is like a pharmaceutical compound that affects the brain,\\\" said Fernando G\\\"mez-Pinilla, a UCLA professor of neurosurgery and physiological science who has spent years studying the effects of food, exercise and sleep on the brain. \\\"Diet, exercise and sleep have the potential to alter our brain health and mental function. This raises the exciting possibility that changes in diet are a viable strategy for enhancing cognitive abilities, protecting the brain from damage and counteracting the effects of aging. \\\"Excess calories can reduce the flexibility of synapses and increase the vulnerability of cells to damage by causing the formation of free radicals. Moderate caloric restriction could protect the brain by reducing oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, G\\\"mez-Pinilla said\\\". According to MSN, In 2013, the Dr Oz Show in the US claimed that soda fountains are the dirtiest places in fast food joints. This was backed up by Dr Sean O\\\"Keefe who agreed that bacteria, germs and mold grow in environments rich in sugar, ice and air. This makes hard-to-clean soda fountains veritable breeding grounds for food poisoning. According to Eat This ,Not That \\\"The high calories in fast food are accompanied by low nutritional content. Too much of that, and your body will begin to lack the necessary nutrients it needs to function properly. \\\"Your body is temporarily full with empty foods that don\\\"t provide nourishment, so even though you may have eaten a lot of calories, you won\\\"t be satisfied for long,\\\" says Amy Shapiro, MS, RD, CDN, founder of Real Nutrition NYC. According to an article published by Physcology Today, \\\"We hold this truth to be self-evident: that Americans are seeing their waistlines expanding more than ever, with no known end to our increasing girth. The stereotype of the fat American has been reduced to a punch line the world over, disguising the dire statistics that this country leads regarding obesity and threat to national healthcare and overall quality of life. We are the fattest industrialized nation across the world, with 2/3 of Americans qualifying as overweight or obese. The obesity epidemic has spread to our nation\\\"s youth, with 1 out of 3 children born in 2000 or after projected to develop type-2 diabetes across his or her lifetime\\\". With this being said, People in the United States should be more aware of what fast food does to their body and their health. My opponent stated that society and their younger generations rely on fast food and that people should realize that others with busy schedules need to eat even if its NOT \\\"HOME-MADE' but my opponent forgot to mention that its \\\"NOT HEALTHY\\\". YES, people with busy schedules need to eat due to it being a necessity of life but there are other options than Fast Food. Fast food has many disadvantages that causes major life threatening issues and with this being said FAST FOOD SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE U.S! http://www.md-health.com... http://newsroom.ucla.edu... https://www.eatthis.com... http://www.healthdata.org...- problem-among https://www.psychologytoday.com...\",\n \"how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments\\nI do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)\",\n \"Obesity In America should we do something\\nyes they have to do something but we have to urge them to do something no one will just get up and do it we the people have to help with obesity\",\n \"Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity\\nI really disagree that parents should be blamed for their child's obesity. It's not like the parents are shoving the food down their child's throats. Kids are soley responsible for what they consume. Kids dont just eat at home. They can eat at school, with their friends at McDonalds, ect. So childrens parents arent the main influences in what thier children eat.\",\n \"DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools\\n(INTRODUCTION) I would like to clarify that we mean GRADE SCHOOL! I am sorry for that miss, and I do hope you accept this definition. If not, please propose your own definition of the resolution, though remember there is NO ridiculos semantics. CONTENTION 1: OBESITY RATE IN CHILDRENChild obesity has been a problem around the world. What is obesity? “The condition of being grossly fat or overweight.” (taken from google, not sure where they get there definitions) Now how exactly is this bad for an obese person’s health? “Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.” {1} {2} “Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.” {1} {2} “Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.\\\" {1} {2} Want to hear something shocking? Well, it turns out that out of all children, 20% (around) are obese. One in every five children are obese! {1} {2} So now that you know the health risks that obesity comes with, you now need to know how to combat it. With physical activity: “Healthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity”{1} {2} Obviously in gym you get physical activity, and if it is a requirement it will MAKE SURE that these obese children start getting healthier. If it was optional, most of these children would most likely not go to gym, and thus develop the obesity more. So now I ask anyone who is reading this, do you want ( I did the calculations based on the facts provided earlier) 14% of all children to have a major risk for cardiovascular disease? I don’t think so. To slowly lower this number, gym should be a requirement in all grade schools. CONTENTION 2: GYM HELPS YOU THINK In grade school academics, the goal is for you to get smarter, and learn. So what is an effective way to help your brain get working? Your first reaction is mostly ‘well you go to your classes and academic subjects’ but I have reason to believe your reaction could be ‘go to P.E.’ I will provide multiple studies showing why: “Look at the brain functioning after just 20 minutes of walking. Getting kids to move helps strengthen and stimulate their brains. This is why so many recent research studies are showing increased fitness = improved academics. Note: The blue color represents inactivity in the brain.” {3} To see the image go here (sorry my computer can’t post images so I have to give links to them): http://www.debate.org... From the same interesting website came this overwhelming evidence from a different study: They took 3 million children and compared the kids who had a higher fitness level to the corresponding academic level and kids who had a lower fitness level to the corresponding academic level and look what they found: http://www.debate.org... Shocking isn’t it? Here is some more studies: “The California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit. In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed — kids who were more fit performed better academically.” {4} Now, before I run out of space to finish this argument and argument 3, I would like to post one last study under this contention: “Charles Hillman, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, was able to duplicate these findings with 259 third and fifth-grade Illinois students. His team also noticed that two of the tests, BMI and aerobic capacity, were significantly more influential to higher academic scores than the other four fitness factors. Digging deeper, he isolated two groups of 20 students, one fit and the other unfit. They were given cognitive tests of attention, working memory and processing speed while their brain's electrical activity was being measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) test. The fit kids' brains showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, known for its executive function and control” {4} So, just to clarify, if you make gym a REQUIREMENT then the test score of ALL the students will be very likely go up. But if it is optional or even non-existent, then obviously these kids who came to school would not be going to gym and thus not helping the brain enough. When they mean a correlation from fit kids to high academic scores, I want to point out that a major way for a kid to start getting fit starts with gym. Look at this: http://www.debate.org... Alright, on to the next point. CONTENTION 3: GYM REDUCES STRESS IN SCHOOL Stress sucks, it is nerve racking and just really is almost painful. Now let me show you just how much stress sucks. “Stress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases. Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following: Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress. Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually. The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.” {5} Let me break this down a bit. The facts provided are obvious reasons for why stress sucks Let me point out the Alcohol, Drugs, etc… makes it worse. Now, I know this sounds a bit abstract, but just how much do kids in grade school drink, use drugs, etc? “25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol” {6} So, wait, 1 IN 5 KIDS DRINK ALCOHOL? That is horrible! Ok so now how many kids take drugs or smoke? I am going to use marijuana as an example: “7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana” {7} So a HIGH amount of kids drink and use drugs which, if you remember an earlier quote, make existing stress worse, then obviously we need to stop stress before it happens! Now what is an effective way to stop stress before normal kids and drinking and drug using kids get school/social stressed? GYM! “Physical education classes provide the opportunity to participate in sports, exercise and perform other activities that promote physical fitness. These activities release chemicals in your brain known as endorphins, which help produce feelings of calm and relaxation. A study done by the University of Georgia in 2008 showed that people who exercise just 20 minutes a day can decrease their fatigue by 65 percent. If you're feeling tired and stressed out, getting exercise will help refresh you.” {8} POINT. PROVEN. (CONCLUSION) Thank you, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cdc.gov... {2} GO TO {1} AND GO TO REFERENCE 7, 5,6,10, 15, 12, 11, 14 {3} http://www.phitamerica.org... {4} http://www.livescience.com... {5} http://www.webmd.com... {6} http://www.cdc.gov... {7} http://www.drugabuse.gov... {8} http://classroom.synonym.com...\",\n \"More People Should Fat-Shame Women\\nOutline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer \\\"Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder\\\"Diabetes \\\"Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers.\\\" [2]Heart disease \\\"Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart.\\\" [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence \\\"CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity.\\\" [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber \\\"It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake\\\" [5] Sleep \\\"Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals.\\\" [6]. Exercise \\\" Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%).\\\" [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com...\",\n \"Obesity\\nIt seems like fast food is almost a daily topic in the news. Whether it is because of their ingredients (such as trans fat), the negative health effects (like diabetes), or being linked to obesity, fast food dominates the headlines. This then begs the question, \\\"Does fast food cause obesity?\\\" The simple answer is no. Consuming more calories from food than the body can burn is what causes weight gain. This means that you could eat fast food on a regular basis and not become obese. In fact, you can even lose weight while eating fast food. This, however, requires knowledge of not only how many calories you are burning on a daily basis, but also the calories in the food that you are eating. What Does the Research Say? Fast food is not the cause of obesity in today's society. However, because fast food is typically high in calories and the portions are large, it does promote eating too many calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Beside \\\"fast food\\\" there are another causes of obesity: Lack of Energy Balance A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT. Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active. Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use. An Inactive Lifestyle Many people aren't very physically active. One reason for this is that many people spend hours in front of TVs and computers doing work, schoolwork, and leisure activities. In fact, more than 2 hours a day of regular TV viewing time has been linked to overweight and obesity. Environment Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include: •Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active. •Oversized food portions. People are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity. •Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly. Genes and Family History Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese. Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment. Health Conditions Some hormone problems may cause overweight and obesity, such as underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism), Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Underactive thyroid is a condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone. Lack of thyroid hormone will slow down your metabolism and cause weight gain. You'll also feel tired and weak. Cushing's syndrome is a condition in which the body's adrenal glands make too much of the hormone cortisol. Cushing's syndrome also can develop if a person takes high doses of certain medicines, such as prednisone, for long periods. People who have Cushing's syndrome gain weight, have upper-body obesity, a rounded face, fat Emotional Factors Some people eat more than usual when they're bored, angry, or stressed. Over time, overeating will lead to weight gain and may cause overweight or obesity. Smoking Some people gain weight when they stop smoking. One reason is that food often tastes and smells better after quitting smoking. Another reason is because nicotine raises the rate at which your body burns calories, so you burn fewer calories when you stop smoking. However, smoking is a serious health risk, and quitting is more important than possible weight gain. Lack of Sleep Research shows that lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity. For example, one study of teenagers showed that with each hour of sleep lost, the odds of becoming obese went up. Lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity in other age groups as well. People who sleep fewer hours also seem to prefer eating foods that are higher in calories and carbohydrates, which can lead to overeating, weight gain, and obesity. Sources: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... http://weight-loss.emedtv.com...\",\n \"Curb childhood Obesity for USA\\nI would like to start my debate off with some statistics from: \\\"http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions >more than a third of American children, aged between six and nineteen are either overweight, or at risk of becoming obese >58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese >Eight out of ten over 25 is Overweight >78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations Obesity Related Diseases >80% of type II diabetes related to obesity >70% of Cardiovascular disease related to obesity >42% breast and colon cancer diagnosed among obese individuals >30% of gall bladder surgery related to obesity >26% of obese people having high blood pressure Childhood Obesity Running Out of Control >New study suggests one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance) >Between 8% - 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. >Of Children diagnosed with Type II diabetes, 85% are obese >60% already have one risk factor for heart disease -Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com The United States of America Is the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a rising epidemic. Children need to be more involved in school activities. and need to eat right to stay healthy. Parents contribute to this rise in weight, they should control what their children eat, not vice versa. This increase in School activities would cost millions of dollars, but isn't it worth it for protecting our youth? Lunch programs are being paid by Farmers and big companies to provide their products in school. Also, companies are making millions by selling food to children that are high in saturated fats and trans fat which cause major health problems in children. therefore, be it resolved, >that the National School Lunch program should shift it's focus from aiding farmers to providing a nutritious lunch for students. therefore be it resolved. >That commercials should exlude characters (ex.Lucky Charm) that seem appealing to youngsters >That schools should include more activities and teach children that these foods are bad for them, and should be taken in small quantities.\",\n \"Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.\\nWhat is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a \\\"disease\\\" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!\",\n \"Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time.\\nDear con, you could have given your definitions in earlier rounds but since neither of us did that, I don't see any problem giving my definitions as soon as I could, in this case, in R3.You have been talking about me breaking the proper format rule so much. And I remind you once again, you are the one who started arguing in the wrong round. I mean, what are you even arguing against if the instigator, who is on the affirmative side, hasn't even said anything yet.Then you broke yet another rule of citing your sources at the end of last round in your R3.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\\\"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance.\\\"No, being excessively fat, or obese is. \\\"The best way to describe a fat person, is that they're the size of a car.\\\"The best way to describe an obese person, not a fat person. (Not in my opinion though, Lamborghini, for example makes some slick narrow super cars)I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'. \\\"This source tells us that one in 11 deaths are cause by excess fat. Being fat is an efficient way to die.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;Oh, look! You have a source mentioned in the middle of R3! Anyways, I opened it and the first thing I see is the heading (obviously) - \\\"Britain's obesity death rate\\\" WHY DOESN'T MY OPPONENT GET I AM NOT SUPPORTING OBESITY! FAT AND OBESE ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE MEDICAL SENSE! The Google definition of obese is \\\"GROSSLY FAT\\\" i.e. \\\"RIDICULOUSLY FAT\\\". Yes, ridiculous amounts of fat kills people, Yes, it is a disease. Yes, people who are ridiculously fat should be given medical aid. BUT WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT OBESITY IN THIS DEBATE?I still stand by my words. Being fat is okay. Being obese is wrong. You are speaking against obesity, I am against obesity as well! But don't falsely say that every fat person on this planet is also obese.\\\"This is detestable and you should be ashamed sir, ASHAMED\\\"Sure, buddy. I should be ashamed of stating the real facts? Or should I be ashamed because you want me to, since you sense you are losing? I think, you should get the differences between basic English words like obese and fat cleared up. You are confused.\\\"Obesity is not a paradox\\\"No, it is not, but 'obesity paradox' is a paradox. It has confused so many people in the medical field. You can't just deny its existence because you don't want it to exist! Although, I still don't support obesity, but I needed to show one case where fat people are fit, and look! There are enough cases to confuse a whole group of medical professionals around the world. My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.In my opinion, and hopefully that of a huge number of people, little knowledge is what is actually a very dangerous thing. I get it, you hate fat people for being fat, you want everyone to have glistening abs, but you shouldn't let your pre formed views come in the way of this debate.\\\"Certainly it can't be healthy to your mental health being fat, the realisation that you're less attractive to the opposite sex. The opposite sex have deemed you UNFIT through unconscious bias.\\\"Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either.\\\"Heart deisease is the number one cause of death in America\\\" (Use the spell check feature please. Using proper spelling is a rule as well {Con spelled disease as deisease}, not a big deal, but still.)America suffers from obesity, and so people die due to it. I still don't support obesity. I support being moderately fat (I don't even know how many times I will have to mention this)\\\"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today\\\" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to \\\"preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants\\\". I would like the voters to consider con's providing of a link of a completely unrelated to the debate just for the sake of a silly joke.I would also like the voters to consider that con's argument was about how obesity is bad for people, even after I had stated that I do not support obesity in R3 (quoting myself from R3 - \\\"I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity\\\") Apparently, con just chose to ignore me.Quote from source - \\\"In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight.\\\"Fat is a killer when in excess. Diseases such as a myriad of heart diseases don't depend only on weight.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have successfully argued and made my points against the contender. I have proved through the arguments that more than one cases exist where fat people are fit. Doing that was the necessary and sufficient condition for proving myself correct to con and the voters. The con has not yet been able to prove that fat people are unfit in every case. He has only proved that obese people are unfit and even that is not 100% true, since the Obesity paradox exists. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope we reach a conclusion on common grounds. Sources will be mentioned at the end of R5 (BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE) I await con's last round of argument before conclusion round. :)\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity Though one might be inclined to agree with the statement, that a fat tax on its own would be insufficient to solve the problem of rising obesity, it is also simply not the case. There are numerous educational campaigns underway, from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s school dinners to the first ladies ‘Let’s move’ that are effectively targeting that aspect of the fight against obesity. What is needed to balance these is tangible action by the government that is able to underwrite and solidify what these campaigns are saying. In short, to help our society practice what we preach.","how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Initially, i'd like to agree with your opinion that obesity is not better than being thin in any case, but there are also some unfavourable problems when your body needs some kind of vitamins, chemical elements such as iron, calcium or zinc. However, your stomach doesn't digest this extremely crucial chemical elements because there is something wrong with digestion system which leds to being thin and having problems with health.","Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.","Fatness ! “the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. ” Not exactly, but since you are not credible we can’t take your word for it when you talk about fact. “it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. ” No sir, you just have to have evidence. You carry the burden of proof; you have to prove why it is bad to have fat people made to look beautiful. “Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. ” You have to prove why it hurts. “Fat is a choice. ” Yes, sometimes it is, doesn’t mean some fat people are beautiful. “Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. ” Not all the time. “There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. ” Yes, it does happen, so you are proving my point. “So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience. ” I’m not misleading anyone nor am I lying. I showed what the American Medical Association has said. Attack the arguments not the character of the debater. “And so definitions are man made and broad,” So are you saying you can only have a definition if it comes from God? You just brought up a definition… “so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description,”Just because Eddy doesn’t agree that the sun is in the sky doesn’t make it any less true. “There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. ” I’m not misleading anyone. I’m quoting the American Medical Association. “This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them,” Uh, no it’s a fact… “You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. ” Um, I’m not racist… I sure hope you aren’t ether. “Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. ” Uh, I agree they should not be ashamed but by this debate that’s what you are doing. Nobody should be discriminated. “Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. ” Uh, you have brought up no reason to believe that fatness is glamorized. “The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. ” No, you did not clearify, I was showing how that was good. “I am not saying show the top 8% only. ” That’s what the media does, anything other than the 8% is “too fat. ” “We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. ” By this debate you are implying they are ugly… “completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. ” A) That’s a horrible thing to say and B) That’s terrible. “it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. ” Um, that’s really sweet of you to say. Also, you look desperate too… “I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive” Uh, so you are intuitive enough to show this hurts society? You never explained that. “the points still stand though and have not been disputed. ” No they don’t, they had no backing on them and they hold no weight to this round. “Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. ” Uh, what? Even RoyLatham does that… “I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. ” I don’t understand. “Again with the avoidance, proof is here that proves nothing,” all it says is fat is bad, not why it is bad or why it affects our country as a whole.","Junk Food Can Cause Obesity The rate of obesity in the United States has risen dramatically. According to the CDC, more than one third of the population is considered obese. The rate of obesity is similar among children to the rate of obesity in the general population. Many more people are not obese but overweight. According to USAToday, around two thirds of the population is overweight. According to ScienceDaily, even moderate obesity can substantially shorten life expectancy. Over consumption of junk foods is a major contributing factor in the obesity epidemic. Many junk foods are extremely high in calories, and it's easy for a person to exceed the recommended number of calories when they eat junk foods. Banning junk food in schools would reduce the amount of junk food that kids eat. Furthermore, some schools have already taken this step.","Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Obesity is the most urgent problem facing America today. Today, 36% of all adults ( people over 18 ) are obese! That is 1 in every three adults. what's more is that obesity rates have doubled from 1990 going from 15% to 30%! However, this major issue does not just affect adults. 2 out of every 9 kids ages 2-19 are obese. This is not a problem that will just resolve its self, without immediate attention obesity rates could double again and again and again until the entire population is obese! Do you really want a society where the children of the future all can't do many of the physical activities that we enjoy today due to their weight? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...","P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. About one out of six children and adolescents ages six to 19 are obese.1 As these children grow older, they have a much greater for daily, quality physical education in our nation\"s schools to give children a healthy head start on life. A GROWING SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE: SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES \" Unfortunately, even obese pre-schoolers, are risk than their healthy weight peers of developing and 2 dyingfromchronicdiseasesinadulthood. Some showing some of the biomarkers related to 13 experts claim that by 2015, 75% of adults will be 3,4 cardiovascular risk. \" A recent study showed that the plaque buildup in overweight with 41% obese. One important way to stop this rise in obesity and chronic disease in our children is by establishing lifelong physical activity habits with strong physical education programs and regular physical activity opportunities throughout the day in our nation\"s schools. Children must be physically active at school and learn about keeping healthy through exercise and a balanced diet. Regular physical activity is associated with a healthier, longer life and lower risk of CVD, the neck arteries of obese children is similar to 14 those levels seen in middle-aged adults. \" Along with rising obesity rates, the rate of prescription drug use by children for diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol is 15 increasing. \" Other research suggests that regular participation in physical education classes helps reduce obesity in low-income teenagers who are disproportionally affected by the childhood 16 obesity epidemic. \" A recent nationwide survey of school principals showed that kids are more likely to get the recommended amount of recess and physical education if they live in states or districts with policies that call for more of those types of activity.14 \" Sedentary lifestyles are linked to 23% of all U.S. high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and some 5 cancers. If the lessons of lifetime physical activity and healthy food and beverage choices are modeled at both school and home, children will have the optimal foundation for healthy living. 6 Research shows that healthy children learn more effectively 7 andachievemoreacademically. Unfortunately, many schools are cutting back on traditional physical education programs because of budgetary concerns and competing academic demands.8 Beyond the impact on chronic disease, physical inactivity and obesity place a significant burden on our society. Nearly 17% of U.S. medical costs are attributed to the treatment of obesity9 and estimates for treatment of childhood obesity are approximately $14.3 billion.10 Obesity and lack of physical fitness in America\"s youth also affect our national security. Senior former military leaders report that 27% of young Americans are too overweight to serve in the military.11 Around 15,000 potential recruits fail their physicals every year because they are too heavy.12 The American Heart Association strongly advocates 17 \" Children\"s physical activity level drops 18 ACTIVE CHILDREN THRIVE ACADEMICALLY AND SOCIALLY Physically active children are more likely to thrive academically and socially. Through effective physical education, children learn how to incorporate safe and healthy activities into their lives. Physical education is an integral part of developing the \"whole\" child for success in social settings and the learning environment. \" Evidence suggests that physical activity has a positive impact on cognitive ability, avoiding tobacco deaths from major chronic diseases. dramatically between the ages of 9 and 15. American Heart Association Advocacy Department 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 785-7900 Fax: (202) 785-7950 www.heart.org/advocacy ","Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Before we continue I would like to make it totally clear that I agree that obesity is a very important healthcare issue, So you don't need to provide any further arguments for why this is the case - and in any case, That is not what we are arguing. What I am interested in is discussion of whether the fat acceptance movement contributes to the problem of obesity. From what I can tell your argument for why the fat acceptance movement is dangerous is as follows: 1) a majority of people who support the fat acceptance movement are themselves dangerously overweight and 2) fat acceptance teaches these people that they can and should ignore the health risks associated with being fat whether or not statement 1 is true (you would need to prove this, So provide sources if you think you can), Statement 2 is just false. The fat acceptance movement does not try to minimise the health risks associated with obesity it simply proposes that fat itself is not inherently a problem, Which is something you already agree with. From your third source, You quote: \"the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity. \" - yes, Precisely, Overeating and physical inactivity is the problem, Not 'fat', The fat acceptance movement does not promote \"overeating and physical inactivity\" it tries to lift the stigmas associated with fatness. Now to turn to your reasoning and your sources. You seem to suggest that because fat acceptance is more common in America and the UK and because those countries have high obesity rates that therefore fat acceptance contributes to obesity. This logic is extremely flawed. Can I point out that your second source is some statistics posted on the site for a company that does gastric band surgery? That's not exactly what I would call an impartial source. But the statistics themselves show that America is the 19th most obese country per capita. This is YOUR source that says this (honestly its a surprise for me too). Qatar is 8th on the list with an obesity rate of 42. 3%, 11 whole places higher than America, Does that mean that the fat acceptance movement must be even bigger in Qatar than the US? You have not demonstrated a correlation between fat acceptance and obesity.","Obesity Okay be \"flaffy\" but it has disadvantages like:dyspnea,diabet etc","Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. After doing extensive research, I've found that poverty is one of the leading causes for obesity today for many reasons. One of the reasons is their low income, and not being able to afford health food. Today, the cheapest food is also the most unhealthy food, leading to morbidly obese rates in children and young adults. Also, they do not have access to gym facilities, which doesn't help this issue.","Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity My opponent starts with the premise that obesity is a bad thing. Yes certain things like diabetes and cardio vascular diseases come due to obesity, but my opponent makes the assumption that such thing is bad because people are opposed to the idea. Now my opponent has no grounds to say that this is the case, there are people who are for, against, and impartial to obesity. Therefore this obesity issue is subjective, and if my opponent is arguing that we should ban things that promote such subjective things, then my opponent would be proposing to ban all other subjective promoting things. Now there is a weight \"problem\" in the U.S. in general, not just obesity, but anorexia. Therefore for people with anorexia the may be a good thing. Also junk food promotes variety since it adds a different category of food to whole bunch of foods.","Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems I said that parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems just because people that are over 200 pounds and less than 6 feet tall are considered obese, doesnt mean they have problems, but those who do have problems shouldnt burden their children with their obesity.","Obesity is a disease This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. \"What part of this didn't you understand, thebestdebate?","We should introduce a 'fat tax' I accept. I couldn't believe David Cameron when he once said that drastic action was needed to prevent health costs soaring and life expectancy falling by introducing a \"fat tax\". Obesity is a major problem, so I look forward to reading why you think a fat tax is the best option for tackling this problem. Good luck Pro","physical education should be abolished i am from Lansing Michigan, And our governor Rick snyder is tryng to make it where your obese child has to be maintaned...... i feel that while we are in gym/ pe we are excersising and doing whats best for us because obesity can cause diabetes.....","Obesity But some people are so sick that they don't have the energy or desire to help themselves get healthier. If you don't have the motivation to get yourself better, then you will never lose that weight.","Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence Nowadays there are so many warnings about the dangers of obesity that if a parent ignores these warnings it is out of choice. If a parent ignores any danger that could affect their child’s health then they are guilty of neglect and should be prosecutable offence. From experience, I can say that the problem is not as much ignoring the warnings as it is a failure to control the child. Parents are not so ignorant of the medical maladies because they do see and hear the warnings. But many parents are unable to deny their children. They see the obesity as less threatening than the possibility of losing the \"affection\" of the child. Parents typically do not want to be the \"bad guy\" who must enforce the rules of positive values and will, in more cases than not, allow the child to maintain a poor diet and eat too often. I am the stepfather of a mildly autistic male who is now 20 years old and roughly 380 lbs. I've seen this played out in person and I can confidently state that, until this allowance of bad vaules is changed, this problem will run even more rampantly. If parents are unwilling or simply unable to make the necessary changes then, perhaps it is time for the legal system to step in...they would if the child were being physically abused. I maintain that the outright allowance of obesity and its many maladies IS physical abuse and should be dealt with appropriately.","Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools Subject: Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools I pro will argue for the subject. Con will argue against the subject. Strict food and nutrition guidelines are needed to prevent obesity. Obesity is no joking matter as seen below. \"Morbidity secondary to overweight and obesity include type 2 diabetes, dislipemia, hypertension, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, cholelithiasis, osteoarthritis, heart insufficiency, sleep apnoea, menstrual changes, sterility and psychological alterations.\" Nutr Hosp. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):319-24. \"Obesity is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for a number of benign and malignant gastrointestinal conditions. However, literature on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms is sparse and ambiguous. There is compelling evidence that both overnutrition and undernutrition negatively interfere with the immune system. Overnutrition has been found to increase susceptibility to the development of inflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases and cancer\" World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 14; 16(38): 4762\"4772. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...","It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us. That said, I agree that not all shiftless scroungers are obese and visa-versa but, the fact is, that obese people in the United States are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. {1} That should come as no surprise, however, as obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy? Furthermore, the same study shows that obese people in work are far more likely to take sick leave than other workers and, therefore, cost employers more. Meanwhile, in Australia, studies show that \"Obesity is costing the Australian economy $637 million dollars each year due to indirect costs associated with increased sick leave, lower productivity, unemployment, disability, early retirement and workplace injuries. This is in addition to the $1.08 billion obesity related healthcare costs. \" {2} Similarly, in Britain, the cost of treating the obese is threatening to bankrupt the National Health Service. {3} My opponent mentioned drug rehabilitation facilities and alcohol addiction counselling services, and similar programmes are available for the obese should they wish to take advantage of them. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim, it takes self-discipline in fast food restaurants and hard work in the gym to lose weight and keep that weight off, but those that manage it should be congratulated. On the other hand, those obese people who refuse to help themselves and think that the world owes them a living should be made to think again. Thank you. {1} . http://www.gallup.com... {2} . http://www.myvmc.com... {3} . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...","Overweight people cannot be beautiful. I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un\"health\"y adjective harmful to health. \"an unhealthy diet\" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?","Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong. I would like to argue that suing fast food restaurants due to obesity is wrong and makes no sense. I am a very novice debater with not much writing background, so I am looking for an opponent that won't butcher me.","Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. http://www.youtube.com... Here's another video. It isn't necessarily about childhood obesity, but it is a good video on obesity in America (and is somewhat entertaining). Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child(ren). By neglecting to feed a child nutritious foods and allowing them adequate amount of exercise, you are abusing them. We can encourage them to feel better (which would maintain mental health), but they still will be physically unhealthy. The emotional damage of being teased for your weight (something I can relate to) is absolutely devastating. Eating dinner as a family (without distractions) has been proven to be better for the kids. Children are less likely to smoke and engage in risky behaviors. If parents are too busy to cook dinner and eat with their kids at the dinner table, maybe they should've reconsidered having a family. To answer my opponent's question, \"And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter?\": Of course it should matter! The human body wasn't meant to carry 30 extra lbs. of fat. The fat kid most likely has a sleep apnea or a CPAP machine to held them breathe at night. The fat kid will probably develop type 2 diabetes. The fat kid probably has high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol. In response to my opponent's question, \"Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion[?]\": Society's opinion is the right opinion. Being overweight or obese isn't normal and should not be tolerated. Yes, we need to encourage positive self-esteem habits in our children, but something like being heavy is completely preventable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...","Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, \"Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain.\" Sources http://obesity.procon.org...","Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence","Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Rebuttle:1. Parents who suffer from obesity are right to share this burden with children, regardless of the consequences. College age [aka adult] children deserve to know the truth, and the consequences their families may face. If this changes their decisions it is their own choice. 2. Bullies can see that a kid's parents are fat. Educating one's child about this disease puts bullying in context, and helps them understand. Teaching a child about your health condition is not burdening them.","Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights You are right, parents cannot prevent their children from becoming obese unless they are aware how to do it. But nowadays there is a lot of information on this issue: online, books, TV, doctors etc. etc. And yet childhood obesity is one of the most serious health challenges for our century. Some parents simply do not care about the issue and are reluctant to get educated. And something has to be done to change it. Parents have to be legally responsible for letting their child become obese!","Fatness ! Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... “Obesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.” Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a “perfect” body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... “The Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.” Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of “perfect body.” http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed “too fat” women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are “too fat.” Harm 4: Women who are deemed “too fat” may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro’s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.","government should implement a 'fat tax' What counts as \"fat\" There are different levels of being overweight. There is overweight, and obesity. According to the CDC, if you have a BMI above 24.9 means that you are overweight. Having a BMI of above 30.0 means that you are obese. If you could please clarify which or both you are suggesting this fat tax against, I would appreciate it greatly. Secondly, I would like to ask, are you suggesting we tax the elderly who are obese? Because, due to various problems (balance difficulties, joint problems, etc.) it may become difficult for elders to exercise. Especially elders who are not incredibly wealthy. Would these count as medically known reasons for being overweight? Especially since some elders with some joint difficulties may find it more easy to exercise, while others may not. Thirdly, with this \"Obama care penalty\" logic. Are you thinking that anybody who is fat and is using health care that is necessary because of their fatness? Or do you think that anybody who is fat gets this tax no matter if they are using government healthcare or not. It would be helpful to clarify. I got my information on BMI from http://www.cdc.gov... Thank you, and I look forward to your rebuttal.","We should not have to live alongside sex offenders, drug addicts and the fat These days, many parents do not allow their kids to walk or cycle to school as they may have done themselves when they were teenagers. This is largely due to the risk, perceived or real, of their children coming into contact with any of the numerous paedophiles and drug pushers that now infest our neighbourhoods. However, there is another category of undesirable people that kids would be very unlikely to encounter either walking or cycling to school: the fat. However, when they get to school, normal children are forced to mix with overweight children and, worse still, they are made to treat them with dignity and respect. This is despite the fact that the unhealthy eating habits that lead to obesity are \"contagious\" and there is \"a strong link between teenagers own weight and that of their closest peers.\" http://news.bbc.co.uk... As a society, we don't allow teenage drug addicts to be educated alongside regular students and we don't allow convicted paedophiles to become teachers, so why do we continue to put our kids in harms way by allowing fat children to attend the same schools as them? Obviously, some people are overweight due to medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and Prada Willi syndrome, and these unfortunate people should not be considered part of the problem. However, the fact is that over 99% of the fat are overweight because they consume more calories than they expend, in other words they are gluttonous and lazy. This is their choice, just as drug addicts choose to snort cocaine or inject themselves with heroin. http://www.nhs.uk... Isn't it about time we woke up and realised that sex offenders, illegal drug users and the fat should be housed in separate communities in order to prevent them from harming decent, hard-working people and their children? Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...","Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.","Fat people live longer than skinny people. Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines \"fat\" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that \"fat\" means \" having more body fat than is optimally healthy\". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Mar�a Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: ■Type 2 Diabetes ■Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke ■Metabolic Syndrome ■Cancer ■Sleep Apnea ■Osteoarthritis ■Gallbladder Disease ■Fatty Liver Disease ■Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away.","how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.","physical education should be abolished Thank you for your reply. Pro says: \"obesity can cause diabetes\" My answer: Maintaining a child's health is not the school's responsibility. The school is solely there to educate the child. The child's health is the parent's responsibility. If the child was fed properly and healthy at home, there would be no \"obesity\" for these children. This PE period takes away from the child learning.","Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems The CDC (2012) defines obese as being over 200lbs and less than 6ft tall. Most stocky men are \"obese\", and you are saying that their weight makes them incapable of parenting, when it doesn't even prohibit them from playing sports in most cases. Also 1/3rd of Americans are obese (CDC), what youre suggesting would take children away from 30% of our country and put them in foster care. Obesity is a consequence of a national disregard for diet, not immorality.","It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing \"rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. \" Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, \"I am competent/incompetent\") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; \"it was beneath his dignity to cheat\"; \"showed his true dignity when under pressure\" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; \"physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients\" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: \"It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility\" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London \" Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily\" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...","Being overweight is bad 1. Being overweight can't increase risk of diabetes. 2. Fat makes you warmer so it lets you be warmer in the winter. 3. Anyone can change a commment or post on wikipedia so it is almost no use of putting wikipedia on there 4. It isn't bad for your mental health I await my opponent's rebuttal","Being overweight is bad 1. Being overweight can increase the risk of diabetes. 2. It's bad for physical health. 3. It's bad for your mental health. 4. It also can increase the risk of kidney disease. 5. It makes you weigh more so it takes more energy to walk or run. 6. It reduces life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is why being overweight is bad. I thank whoever joins this debate. Vote Pro please. Thank you","America is NOT obese. I agree that childhood obesity is rising, but that is the parents' problem. Not everybody else's. If the parent thinks the child is too overweight, then they can do something, not concern the rest of America with it. And most of the time, with the negative emotions, it's because if they're feeling depressed, or stressed, or sad, or anything else negative, they'll just sit on their lazy a$$es and stare at the TV all day, thinking \"Oh, whoa is me. I'm getting fat because I'm depressed.\" You know what, no, they're not getting fat because they're depressed. They're getting fat because they're LAZY.","Obesity Skinny people also have the chance to gain weight by eating more and exercising less. But on the other hand it is also possible for obese people to eat less and exercise more. Anorexia and obesity are both terrible sicknesses but there are many ways to cure those sicknesses.","Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights Yes, the risk for developing various health issues increases. We as humans need to remember that most people are not educated about the health issues that will arise from being obese. This should not be overlooked. People can not talk about obesity without talking about education on obesity. So yes, this debate is just as much about education as obesity. Should kids be taken away from their parents for not having control over their parents influenced the child.","The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...","We should introduce a 'fat tax' Statistics (1) More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. Adults are obese. Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%). (2) Non-Hispanic meaning not Latin American e.g the United States and its Hispanic neighbours. Obesity is higher among middle age adults, 40-59 years old (39.5%) than among younger adults, age 20-39 (30.3%) or adults over 60 or above (35.4%) adults. Amazingly, (3) shows that no state or territory has <20% of obesity in the US population. Australia is also horrendous, (4) in the fact that 63% of adults are obese, 25% of children are overweight or obese and that it is the 2nd highest contributor to burden of disease.Overweight and obesity (high BMI) is the second highest contributor to burden of disease, after dietary risks. Smoking is the third highest. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. Was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. Dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. Never the less, it proves that the USA, UK and Australia is some of the most obese countries in the world, thanks to Con's points. (5) Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese.39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2014, and 13% were obese. Most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight. 42 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2013. Obesity is preventable. NHS and diseases The tax was introduced in October 2011, (6) in an attempt to limit the population’s intake of fatty foods, and reduce obesity rates. According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47% of Danes are overweight and 13% are obese (UK). Any food with a saturated fat content of more than 2.3 per cent will be taxed at a rate of 16 kronor (£1.85) per kilogram of saturated fat. The move will add the equivalent of 25p to a pack of butter and 8p on a pack of crisps. This is statistically working on our society, changing peoples decisions on food. Appallingly, with obesity numbers rising so fast — with it estimated that by 2050 the cost to the NHS (at current prices) could reach £9.7 billion a year — the wider cost to society might push £50 billion (7) The National Health Service: in the UK, a system that provides free medical care and is paid for through taxes. The NHS should certainly not be wasting money on obese patients, but with obesity, comes many diseases. (8) High blood pressure- Above people who are 25, 75 million people that are obese suffer from High blood pressure. Diabetes- 90% of people who have diabetes suffer from type 2 diabetes. Heart disease- people who are under 45 have the greatest risk of getting heart diseases. Cancer- if you are obese you have a 50% chance of getting cancer. Depression- depression increases by 55% if you are obese. Gallstones- If you are a women, gallstones can deeply effect you. There are many more diseases, but I just named a few. Impact on the Minority Con stated at the bottom of paragraph five that 'most people don't likes paying taxes, especially when they do nothing for them'. In the fact that 63% of adults in Australia, 34.9% of US, 25% of UK and 39% of adults world wide are obese; don't you think we are in a way helping the wider people to live. Helping decrease cancer risks and other diseases, we are truly helping our society. 'Most people including myself eat chocolate, cake, and biscuits yet have a healthy lifestyle. It is not harmful to treat yourself now and then' states Con. I agree, but most people cannot control themselves and end up eating more than one/two pieces. I do a lot of sport, so when I go to school with my friends we have ice-cream every lunch and share lollies. (Now I think about it) my friends are overweight. Unless you even up the food with fitness it is okay, but some people could have 1 large fries from MacDonald's, chips, lollies, gum and 2 pieces of chocolate cake. You can't burn that off unless you do 5 hours f intense training. Burpees are hard- jump, push up, get up and repeat.(9) You have to do 524 burpees to burn off 1 large fries from Maccas. Fatter foods 'Many foods like cheese, butter, and milk will fall into the unhealthy label, when actually they can be good for you, and better than alternatives like margarine, so people trying to eat more healthily may find it harder financially to achieve their goal'- Con. Instead of full cream milk or fat milk, there is always the alternative of skim milk or low fat milk. Milk isn't unhealthy as it has many essential vitamins like calcium. Calcium helps your body develop stronger bones, hair, skin, nails and in general it is good for your body. Margarine and butter are basically the same. Butter has more fat than margarine but margarine has more chemicals than butter. The two won't be 'fat' because for a sandwich or a piece of toast you only add a bit. Unless you go eating the whole tub, margarine and butter are healthy in small quantities. Technically, financial matters will even out. If everyone ate healthily in the first place, we wouldn't have to get the 'fat tax.' Besides that, there would be less waist on money and resources for obese people. Such as the 'lager people ambulance'. Cheap food isn't good for you, you would end up getting not enough vitamins into your body. Then you'd have to use money on pills, treatment, doctors appointments etc. It all works out in the end. Fat tax benefits The fat tax will ensure the hospitals facilities and ambulances, it will make our society healthier, it will decrease the amount of deaths and will make the environment more of a healthy happy place. Overall, the Fat Tax will certainly be of benefit to our economy. Decreasing deaths and diseases whilst increasing well-being and healthy life style, the Fat Tax is a brilliant invention; helping our society to be a healthier place. Sources:' Statics' websites: (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://www.aihw.gov.au... (5) http://www.who.int... 'NHS and diseases' websites:(6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (7) http://www.macmillandictionary.com...(8) https://www.mediweightlossclinics.com... 'Impact on the minority' websites:(9) http://www.urbandojo.com... 'Fat Tax benefits' websites:(10) http://www.heraldsun.com.au...","Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights Obesity is a major medical deficit in America. If the parents are extremely over weigh, then they aren't capable of taking care of the children, there aren't able to go outside and work and other things of that nature. The parents have created a window of embarrassment for their children, which can also lead to suicide for the children if the harassment is too harsh for the child to bear. Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights. Parents can loose their parental rights for the mere fact that they aren't capable of taking care of the child. And separation of the child and parent can impact the child deeply. If a parent is obese your not teaching your child about their disease, your showing what not to do, and what not to be, which is double messaging. For example if you are drinking and you tell your child not to, how are you supposed to inform them that this wrong when your continuing to drink. Childrens training grounds are based from home. Your children are supposed to take after you in positive ways. How are you teaching your children what no to do when you continue to do it, and by the time you actually get it in your child's head that this isn't the way to go, your gone from this world your self for over eating! As you can see there are many reasons why children are burdened by their parents obesity. When parents are in and out of the hospitable, the financial capabilities take a toll on the child, especially when it deals with getting things they need and sometimes what they want.","Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.","Junk Food leads to obesity. Junk food leads to obesity. Take potato chips for instance. They have a lot of fat in them.","America is NOT obese. True, to say \"America is obese\" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country \"obese\", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...","Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.","Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Childhood obesity is one of the most serious problem in the 21st Century. It is one of the Global problem and it is steadily affecting many Low, Middle and High income class families and their children all over the world. Overweight and Obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and likely to develop Non communicable diseases like Diabetes and Cardio -Vascular diseases at a younger age of Overweight and Obesity. These above causes are mainly based on the advertisements of junk foods from TV and from online Network and from other media that create and absorb children to eat junk foods which results in child obesity.","Should Americans get help beating obesity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a biological problem. The actual predisposition to obesity of all people is 23%. That's a lot less than what they show on TV. You also got the other thought wrong. Fat people try to prove to others that being fat is really normal and people SHOULD be fat in the first place. For example, the weird hit \"All About That Bass\" by Megan Trainor is filled with hate against people who AREN'T fat. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...","Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle Those studies have been refuted with more recent research that proves that eating habits are the main true cause of obesity at any age. ????????????????? eating habits with no excercise yes but there was more calorise in bread and dripping and fish and chips than there is in a mcdonalds,fact. Folk do not walk anywhere now, they do very little now so eat through bordom. A fit person can eat MORE than an obese person because they burn it off, fact, and proven myself personally. It is not the food it is idleness.","americas weight probem is only getting worse The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.","Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.","Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such Many people suffering from overeating do so compulsively as a result of psychological problems. For example a depressed person might comfort eat to feel better. Why should these people be punished instead of helped?","Obesity yes, exercise is important. I guess what my main concern is people's assumption's about obese people. If you see someone over weight, do not assume its because they over eat. If you see someone thin, do not assume it's because they are healthy. The idea of being over weight has misled people into judging \"fat\" people.","Being overweight is bad 1. Where is your evidence? 2. Wikipedia, is formed by professionals. Only people who have a proof website can change it. 3.Being overweight is a known risk factor for heart disease 4. Research more before posting a comment because being overweight CAN INCREASE risk of diabetes. www.news-medical.net/?id=32912 www.mamashealth.com/eat/oweightdam.asp Vote Pro please. Thank you","More People Should Fat-Shame Women Obesity is a subject I have spend copious time researching.My stance My position is that both morbid obesity and obesity are complex biological subjects that have many causes. Fat-shaming is both cruel and counterproductive. Say no to fat shaming.","Diet and exersise!!! You considered nothing I said: Diet is an expensive thing to maintain in some areas. Over 23 million Americans live in a food desert, meaning an area, usually urban, in which it is difficult to by affordable fresh food. And half of those 23 million people are low-income, so they will not have much time for exercise either. When both those intersect in a food desert, obesity is imminent. You may have bananas in your area for pretty cheap, and it's great that it's not expensive to be healthy where you are, but in some areas it is. I don't deny your facts about obesity and preventable disease, and it is a problem, but why are the people suffering from it being much more criticized instead of the local governments for allowing the food deserts to form and stay. Instead of reactive people like you, people have taken a proactive approach to this, building local community gardens with free fresh for for everybody. There are still many people in areas with well-established food security, and to tackle that problem, we once again we don't attack the people affected by unhealthy eating and bad exercise, instead tackling the problem at the source, whatever it may be. By helping these communities and creating a new cultural attitude instead of demeaning them and expecting them to fix themselves on their own, we can finally eradicate the problem. And before making these claims, understand what causes obesity and how it could realistically be fixed. All caps doesn't make you more dominant or correct in this debate. It is showing your adamance towards the second opinion. Sources: https://www.dosomething.org...","Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous To start off, The fat acceptance movement seeks to eliminate anti-fat biases. They are also known as the Health At Every Size movement (or simply HAES). HAES is pretty self-explanatory. A good portion of fat activists believe that you can be overweight and healthy, That we should completely disregard the relationship between weight and health. Thing is, I don\"t believe that is true and the way they see it is pretty much in black and white. It is NOT that simple. This mentality is misleading and can eventually lead to even worse outcomes. Here\"s my first argument:Health and Weight are connected, It is wrong for fat activists to think otherwise because they are factually incorrect. We\"ve seen it, Heard it, Experienced it; you name it. We all know that is simply untrue. \"Your weight, Your waist size, And the amount of weight gained since your mid-20s can have serious health implications. These factors can strongly influence your chances of developing the following diseases and conditions: Cardiovascular disease, Heart attack, Stroke, Diabetes, Cancer, Arthritis, Gallstones, Asthma, Cataracts, Infertility, Snoring, Sleep apnea\"Lets also not forget that excessive weight will damage your knees and wear down the cartilage from the friction. Aside from the unpleasant feeling of your bones grinding together till you collapse, The fatal consequences have become very prevalent. \"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2. 8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. \" Sources:http://easo. Org/education-portal/obesity-facts-figures/https://www. Hsph. Harvard. Edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/","An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn.[1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US.[2] The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few. We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions.[3] Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature.[4] Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for. [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html, accessed 9/12/2011 [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009, http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid=329246AF-5056-B172-B829FC032B70D8DE, accessed 9/14/2011 [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006, http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA24108E-B3C7-4B4D-875A-74F957BF4472/0/ChronicTrendsAlert120063050306.pdf, accessed, 9/14/2011 [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/11/opinion/la-ed-obesity-20110411, accessed 9/12/2011","Obesity is a disease. 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay \"healthy\" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.","Smoking is as bad a Obesity Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;","Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle It is indisputable that not everyone has the same body shape and frame. We genetically inherit many of our physical features and obesity may also be genetically inherited. Therefore it is not right to prosecute a parent who despite providing a healthy lifestyle has an overweight child.","Being fat causes problems for everyone Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].","Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres... Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pressure, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes etc. are the cause of over 50% of deaths in the Arab world. If a fat tax is introduced, fat consumption will fall as consumers save money by buying non-fatty foods. Lower fat and fat-free foods will abound and the society will benefit. Citizens will be leaner, healthier, happier and more productive.","Fat Tax Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...","Obesity I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.","Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle","Obesity In America should we do something I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems\"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.","Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...","Fatness ! Okay so I was lazy on the evidence, still the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. Because you didn't always address what I had said, it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. But I accept, I will present more evidence. Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. So I will go through your answer piece by piece. Fat is a choice. Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. Fact. There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. (1). So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience: Oxford definition: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury. With this definition many things can fit under this classification. For example, alcohol poisoning: 1, 'disorder of structure of function in the human' yes. 2, 'especially on the produces specific symptoms, acts in specific location' yes. 'Not simply the direct result of physical injury' yes. And so definitions are man made and broad, so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description, that it counts as the same thing as everything else under that category. There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them, because they are innocent victims. You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. Fat people are just unfortunate enough to have a weakness that has a effect on their appearance. Your second paragraph I answer above. Though I will add that I say (most the time) because you cannot rule everything out 100% if you are serious about science. It is mearly a humbleness, in practice, as if said above, people are fat because they have eaten too much bad stuff with not enough exercise. A tiny fraction has genetic disorders. Your third paragraph. So the statement you repeat at the top you do not dispute. So we agree that's accurate. You say it is not relevant to the dabate, well its relevant to your point about it being a disease like I have said above. You catergorize it as a disease, because diseases have an understanding by the general public to be inevitable. Therefore your point about glamorising them stands legitimate because its not their fault and you feel sorry for them and they shouldn't be discriminated because of something they have no control over. This is why the point WAS relevant because it explains why it is self inflicted and why your labelling of disease was an attempt to mislead the audience. Also, still on your third paragraph. I do not provide any evidence for fat people harming anyone when in the media, because that is not what I am trying to say. Glamorising fatness, as opposed to fighting it, is not the best choice. Nor can you do both. We want fat people to hate being fat lets be real! anyone who loves the person enough to want to see them grow old does anyway. Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. This could lead many overweight people remaining overweight, this could be because it could serve as an \"identity\" for example. Your fourth paragraph: I don't think you fully understood me there? The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. Them being, bad food education, stigma attached to \"greens\" and attitude towards sweets, unfulfilling jobs and shallow materialistic society that lead to depression and thus addiction (which is fatness, as addiction to food is what causes fatness), alcohol culture, not shameful to be lazy (to some). So how does the fact that people are getting ill from food reflect something good about the society? it doesn't make sense too me... you make this speech about liberalism and rights of the (diseased) but it has no relevance that I can see. I am not saying if someone is funny and qualified but fat, that one should offer the job to the same man who is just skinnier. I am saying we should not be pushing for, and prioritizing putting fat people on T.V in some political correctness frenzy. As fat is a problem that needs help and prevention, not more acceptance. More acceptance = more fatness More fatness = more death. Not good. And I could find evidence suggesting that if something is accepted then people will feel more comfortable doing it, I just take that as obvious. 5th paragraph. I am not saying show the top 8% only. I am saying we should show the middle 80% but also you must remember that its not 8% of women are skinny, its 100% of women are a healthy (quite skinny) normal size, and their diet can change that. If 60% of women in society are obese, should we show more obese people? No, we should not deliberately show more fat people to make the fat population feel better about their life deteriorating addiction. I don't fully understand what your point is on this paragraph so excuse me.. 6th. Don't understand what your trying to say here. 7th. No there isn't anything wrong with that. We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. 8th. When I say people with neurological or personality disorders I mean people who might normally be considered dangerous or completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. And so showing their real self is good to decrease stigma and help sufferers belong. It could be any other life effecting conditions, such as multiple-sclerosis, multiple personality, schizophrenia etc. Fatness is fatness, they may have a 'personality disorder' its called laziness, greediness etc. The are fat because they where to greedy or lazy to stop it, its not fair to put a sufferer of schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis in this same basket. Indeed its a cop out for a fat person to call it a disease, it reduces responsibility. Your 9th. What? its a hypothetical situation what facts could I of possibly got? Answer the question and stop avoiding them all, it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. (bare in mind I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive and others are just hard to find) the points still stand though and have not been disputed. Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. Your 10th. I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. Again with the avoidance, proof is here (paragraph 11) Paragraph 12. Ye it might be seen as respectful to be fat in a starving country of course! it shows you have money and you are probably more healthy than the others who are starving. It is not respectable, solely to be fat. Its what it says about you, in that culture that is respected. Not the fact that they are lazy and greedy. paragraph 12, yes health foods are for talking obesity. So what, I don't get why you are saying that? I would if I was in charge yes. 1. Hu F. Genetic predictors of obesity. In: Hu F, ed. Obesity Epidemiology. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2008; 437\"\"460.","Diet and exersise!!! \"processed\" its called diet and EXERCISE!!! Also, it isnt super expensive to be healthy! bananas are the most cheap food you can buy! Obese people need pressure... FAT ACCEPTANCE IS DEATH ACCEPTANCE!!! it isnt only obesity but being overweight that kills! \"In 2015, nearly four million people died from disease related to their weight, most commonly from heart disease. But only 60% were technically obese, which is defined as a body mass index over 30. The other 40%, or 1.6 million people, were overweight but not obese.\" (https://www.theguardian.com...) People go crazy on people for smoking when in reality OBESITY KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SMOKING (https://www.menshealth.com...)","Being fat causes problems for everyone The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.","Obesity Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.","Obesity is a public health issue . Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.","Obesity epidemics justify mandatory calorie counts Obesity is a major problem around the world, and particularly in the United States. It is so bad that it certainly justifies taking decisive actions such as mandating the labeling of menus in restaurants.","America is NOT obese. As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the \"obesity problem\" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.","Obesity is a public health issue . All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults. [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm","Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!","Obesity is a disease. Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.","Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated \"Cancer is a disease\". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.","Obesity is a disease I accept! Thank you for instigating this debate, @AndDontCallMeShirley. Good luck to my oponent...","Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.","Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not \"choose\" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.","Obesity In America should we do something Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it","Obesity is a disease. Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.","Obesity is a disease Resolution: \"Obesity [1] is a disease [2].\"I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the \"Pro\" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...","Obesity is a disease. Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body."],"string":"[\n \"A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity Though one might be inclined to agree with the statement, that a fat tax on its own would be insufficient to solve the problem of rising obesity, it is also simply not the case. There are numerous educational campaigns underway, from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s school dinners to the first ladies ‘Let’s move’ that are effectively targeting that aspect of the fight against obesity. What is needed to balance these is tangible action by the government that is able to underwrite and solidify what these campaigns are saying. In short, to help our society practice what we preach.\",\n \"how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Initially, i'd like to agree with your opinion that obesity is not better than being thin in any case, but there are also some unfavourable problems when your body needs some kind of vitamins, chemical elements such as iron, calcium or zinc. However, your stomach doesn't digest this extremely crucial chemical elements because there is something wrong with digestion system which leds to being thin and having problems with health.\",\n \"Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.\",\n \"Fatness ! “the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. ” Not exactly, but since you are not credible we can’t take your word for it when you talk about fact. “it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. ” No sir, you just have to have evidence. You carry the burden of proof; you have to prove why it is bad to have fat people made to look beautiful. “Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. ” You have to prove why it hurts. “Fat is a choice. ” Yes, sometimes it is, doesn’t mean some fat people are beautiful. “Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. ” Not all the time. “There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. ” Yes, it does happen, so you are proving my point. “So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience. ” I’m not misleading anyone nor am I lying. I showed what the American Medical Association has said. Attack the arguments not the character of the debater. “And so definitions are man made and broad,” So are you saying you can only have a definition if it comes from God? You just brought up a definition… “so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description,”Just because Eddy doesn’t agree that the sun is in the sky doesn’t make it any less true. “There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. ” I’m not misleading anyone. I’m quoting the American Medical Association. “This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them,” Uh, no it’s a fact… “You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. ” Um, I’m not racist… I sure hope you aren’t ether. “Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. ” Uh, I agree they should not be ashamed but by this debate that’s what you are doing. Nobody should be discriminated. “Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. ” Uh, you have brought up no reason to believe that fatness is glamorized. “The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. ” No, you did not clearify, I was showing how that was good. “I am not saying show the top 8% only. ” That’s what the media does, anything other than the 8% is “too fat. ” “We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. ” By this debate you are implying they are ugly… “completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. ” A) That’s a horrible thing to say and B) That’s terrible. “it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. ” Um, that’s really sweet of you to say. Also, you look desperate too… “I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive” Uh, so you are intuitive enough to show this hurts society? You never explained that. “the points still stand though and have not been disputed. ” No they don’t, they had no backing on them and they hold no weight to this round. “Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. ” Uh, what? Even RoyLatham does that… “I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. ” I don’t understand. “Again with the avoidance, proof is here that proves nothing,” all it says is fat is bad, not why it is bad or why it affects our country as a whole.\",\n \"Junk Food Can Cause Obesity The rate of obesity in the United States has risen dramatically. According to the CDC, more than one third of the population is considered obese. The rate of obesity is similar among children to the rate of obesity in the general population. Many more people are not obese but overweight. According to USAToday, around two thirds of the population is overweight. According to ScienceDaily, even moderate obesity can substantially shorten life expectancy. Over consumption of junk foods is a major contributing factor in the obesity epidemic. Many junk foods are extremely high in calories, and it's easy for a person to exceed the recommended number of calories when they eat junk foods. Banning junk food in schools would reduce the amount of junk food that kids eat. Furthermore, some schools have already taken this step.\",\n \"Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Obesity is the most urgent problem facing America today. Today, 36% of all adults ( people over 18 ) are obese! That is 1 in every three adults. what's more is that obesity rates have doubled from 1990 going from 15% to 30%! However, this major issue does not just affect adults. 2 out of every 9 kids ages 2-19 are obese. This is not a problem that will just resolve its self, without immediate attention obesity rates could double again and again and again until the entire population is obese! Do you really want a society where the children of the future all can't do many of the physical activities that we enjoy today due to their weight? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...\",\n \"P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. About one out of six children and adolescents ages six to 19 are obese.1 As these children grow older, they have a much greater for daily, quality physical education in our nation\\\"s schools to give children a healthy head start on life. A GROWING SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE: SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES \\\" Unfortunately, even obese pre-schoolers, are risk than their healthy weight peers of developing and 2 dyingfromchronicdiseasesinadulthood. Some showing some of the biomarkers related to 13 experts claim that by 2015, 75% of adults will be 3,4 cardiovascular risk. \\\" A recent study showed that the plaque buildup in overweight with 41% obese. One important way to stop this rise in obesity and chronic disease in our children is by establishing lifelong physical activity habits with strong physical education programs and regular physical activity opportunities throughout the day in our nation\\\"s schools. Children must be physically active at school and learn about keeping healthy through exercise and a balanced diet. Regular physical activity is associated with a healthier, longer life and lower risk of CVD, the neck arteries of obese children is similar to 14 those levels seen in middle-aged adults. \\\" Along with rising obesity rates, the rate of prescription drug use by children for diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol is 15 increasing. \\\" Other research suggests that regular participation in physical education classes helps reduce obesity in low-income teenagers who are disproportionally affected by the childhood 16 obesity epidemic. \\\" A recent nationwide survey of school principals showed that kids are more likely to get the recommended amount of recess and physical education if they live in states or districts with policies that call for more of those types of activity.14 \\\" Sedentary lifestyles are linked to 23% of all U.S. high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and some 5 cancers. If the lessons of lifetime physical activity and healthy food and beverage choices are modeled at both school and home, children will have the optimal foundation for healthy living. 6 Research shows that healthy children learn more effectively 7 andachievemoreacademically. Unfortunately, many schools are cutting back on traditional physical education programs because of budgetary concerns and competing academic demands.8 Beyond the impact on chronic disease, physical inactivity and obesity place a significant burden on our society. Nearly 17% of U.S. medical costs are attributed to the treatment of obesity9 and estimates for treatment of childhood obesity are approximately $14.3 billion.10 Obesity and lack of physical fitness in America\\\"s youth also affect our national security. Senior former military leaders report that 27% of young Americans are too overweight to serve in the military.11 Around 15,000 potential recruits fail their physicals every year because they are too heavy.12 The American Heart Association strongly advocates 17 \\\" Children\\\"s physical activity level drops 18 ACTIVE CHILDREN THRIVE ACADEMICALLY AND SOCIALLY Physically active children are more likely to thrive academically and socially. Through effective physical education, children learn how to incorporate safe and healthy activities into their lives. Physical education is an integral part of developing the \\\"whole\\\" child for success in social settings and the learning environment. \\\" Evidence suggests that physical activity has a positive impact on cognitive ability, avoiding tobacco deaths from major chronic diseases. dramatically between the ages of 9 and 15. American Heart Association Advocacy Department 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 785-7900 Fax: (202) 785-7950 www.heart.org/advocacy \",\n \"Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Before we continue I would like to make it totally clear that I agree that obesity is a very important healthcare issue, So you don't need to provide any further arguments for why this is the case - and in any case, That is not what we are arguing. What I am interested in is discussion of whether the fat acceptance movement contributes to the problem of obesity. From what I can tell your argument for why the fat acceptance movement is dangerous is as follows: 1) a majority of people who support the fat acceptance movement are themselves dangerously overweight and 2) fat acceptance teaches these people that they can and should ignore the health risks associated with being fat whether or not statement 1 is true (you would need to prove this, So provide sources if you think you can), Statement 2 is just false. The fat acceptance movement does not try to minimise the health risks associated with obesity it simply proposes that fat itself is not inherently a problem, Which is something you already agree with. From your third source, You quote: \\\"the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity. \\\" - yes, Precisely, Overeating and physical inactivity is the problem, Not 'fat', The fat acceptance movement does not promote \\\"overeating and physical inactivity\\\" it tries to lift the stigmas associated with fatness. Now to turn to your reasoning and your sources. You seem to suggest that because fat acceptance is more common in America and the UK and because those countries have high obesity rates that therefore fat acceptance contributes to obesity. This logic is extremely flawed. Can I point out that your second source is some statistics posted on the site for a company that does gastric band surgery? That's not exactly what I would call an impartial source. But the statistics themselves show that America is the 19th most obese country per capita. This is YOUR source that says this (honestly its a surprise for me too). Qatar is 8th on the list with an obesity rate of 42. 3%, 11 whole places higher than America, Does that mean that the fat acceptance movement must be even bigger in Qatar than the US? You have not demonstrated a correlation between fat acceptance and obesity.\",\n \"Obesity Okay be \\\"flaffy\\\" but it has disadvantages like:dyspnea,diabet etc\",\n \"Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. After doing extensive research, I've found that poverty is one of the leading causes for obesity today for many reasons. One of the reasons is their low income, and not being able to afford health food. Today, the cheapest food is also the most unhealthy food, leading to morbidly obese rates in children and young adults. Also, they do not have access to gym facilities, which doesn't help this issue.\",\n \"Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity My opponent starts with the premise that obesity is a bad thing. Yes certain things like diabetes and cardio vascular diseases come due to obesity, but my opponent makes the assumption that such thing is bad because people are opposed to the idea. Now my opponent has no grounds to say that this is the case, there are people who are for, against, and impartial to obesity. Therefore this obesity issue is subjective, and if my opponent is arguing that we should ban things that promote such subjective things, then my opponent would be proposing to ban all other subjective promoting things. Now there is a weight \\\"problem\\\" in the U.S. in general, not just obesity, but anorexia. Therefore for people with anorexia the may be a good thing. Also junk food promotes variety since it adds a different category of food to whole bunch of foods.\",\n \"Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems I said that parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems just because people that are over 200 pounds and less than 6 feet tall are considered obese, doesnt mean they have problems, but those who do have problems shouldnt burden their children with their obesity.\",\n \"Obesity is a disease This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. \\\"What part of this didn't you understand, thebestdebate?\",\n \"We should introduce a 'fat tax' I accept. I couldn't believe David Cameron when he once said that drastic action was needed to prevent health costs soaring and life expectancy falling by introducing a \\\"fat tax\\\". Obesity is a major problem, so I look forward to reading why you think a fat tax is the best option for tackling this problem. Good luck Pro\",\n \"physical education should be abolished i am from Lansing Michigan, And our governor Rick snyder is tryng to make it where your obese child has to be maintaned...... i feel that while we are in gym/ pe we are excersising and doing whats best for us because obesity can cause diabetes.....\",\n \"Obesity But some people are so sick that they don't have the energy or desire to help themselves get healthier. If you don't have the motivation to get yourself better, then you will never lose that weight.\",\n \"Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence Nowadays there are so many warnings about the dangers of obesity that if a parent ignores these warnings it is out of choice. If a parent ignores any danger that could affect their child’s health then they are guilty of neglect and should be prosecutable offence. From experience, I can say that the problem is not as much ignoring the warnings as it is a failure to control the child. Parents are not so ignorant of the medical maladies because they do see and hear the warnings. But many parents are unable to deny their children. They see the obesity as less threatening than the possibility of losing the \\\"affection\\\" of the child. Parents typically do not want to be the \\\"bad guy\\\" who must enforce the rules of positive values and will, in more cases than not, allow the child to maintain a poor diet and eat too often. I am the stepfather of a mildly autistic male who is now 20 years old and roughly 380 lbs. I've seen this played out in person and I can confidently state that, until this allowance of bad vaules is changed, this problem will run even more rampantly. If parents are unwilling or simply unable to make the necessary changes then, perhaps it is time for the legal system to step in...they would if the child were being physically abused. I maintain that the outright allowance of obesity and its many maladies IS physical abuse and should be dealt with appropriately.\",\n \"Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools Subject: Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools I pro will argue for the subject. Con will argue against the subject. Strict food and nutrition guidelines are needed to prevent obesity. Obesity is no joking matter as seen below. \\\"Morbidity secondary to overweight and obesity include type 2 diabetes, dislipemia, hypertension, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, cholelithiasis, osteoarthritis, heart insufficiency, sleep apnoea, menstrual changes, sterility and psychological alterations.\\\" Nutr Hosp. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):319-24. \\\"Obesity is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for a number of benign and malignant gastrointestinal conditions. However, literature on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms is sparse and ambiguous. There is compelling evidence that both overnutrition and undernutrition negatively interfere with the immune system. Overnutrition has been found to increase susceptibility to the development of inflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases and cancer\\\" World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 14; 16(38): 4762\\\"4772. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...\",\n \"It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us. That said, I agree that not all shiftless scroungers are obese and visa-versa but, the fact is, that obese people in the United States are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. {1} That should come as no surprise, however, as obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy? Furthermore, the same study shows that obese people in work are far more likely to take sick leave than other workers and, therefore, cost employers more. Meanwhile, in Australia, studies show that \\\"Obesity is costing the Australian economy $637 million dollars each year due to indirect costs associated with increased sick leave, lower productivity, unemployment, disability, early retirement and workplace injuries. This is in addition to the $1.08 billion obesity related healthcare costs. \\\" {2} Similarly, in Britain, the cost of treating the obese is threatening to bankrupt the National Health Service. {3} My opponent mentioned drug rehabilitation facilities and alcohol addiction counselling services, and similar programmes are available for the obese should they wish to take advantage of them. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim, it takes self-discipline in fast food restaurants and hard work in the gym to lose weight and keep that weight off, but those that manage it should be congratulated. On the other hand, those obese people who refuse to help themselves and think that the world owes them a living should be made to think again. Thank you. {1} . http://www.gallup.com... {2} . http://www.myvmc.com... {3} . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...\",\n \"Overweight people cannot be beautiful. I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un\\\"health\\\"y adjective harmful to health. \\\"an unhealthy diet\\\" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?\",\n \"Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong. I would like to argue that suing fast food restaurants due to obesity is wrong and makes no sense. I am a very novice debater with not much writing background, so I am looking for an opponent that won't butcher me.\",\n \"Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. http://www.youtube.com... Here's another video. It isn't necessarily about childhood obesity, but it is a good video on obesity in America (and is somewhat entertaining). Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child(ren). By neglecting to feed a child nutritious foods and allowing them adequate amount of exercise, you are abusing them. We can encourage them to feel better (which would maintain mental health), but they still will be physically unhealthy. The emotional damage of being teased for your weight (something I can relate to) is absolutely devastating. Eating dinner as a family (without distractions) has been proven to be better for the kids. Children are less likely to smoke and engage in risky behaviors. If parents are too busy to cook dinner and eat with their kids at the dinner table, maybe they should've reconsidered having a family. To answer my opponent's question, \\\"And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter?\\\": Of course it should matter! The human body wasn't meant to carry 30 extra lbs. of fat. The fat kid most likely has a sleep apnea or a CPAP machine to held them breathe at night. The fat kid will probably develop type 2 diabetes. The fat kid probably has high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol. In response to my opponent's question, \\\"Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion[?]\\\": Society's opinion is the right opinion. Being overweight or obese isn't normal and should not be tolerated. Yes, we need to encourage positive self-esteem habits in our children, but something like being heavy is completely preventable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...\",\n \"Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, \\\"Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain.\\\" Sources http://obesity.procon.org...\",\n \"Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence\",\n \"Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Rebuttle:1. Parents who suffer from obesity are right to share this burden with children, regardless of the consequences. College age [aka adult] children deserve to know the truth, and the consequences their families may face. If this changes their decisions it is their own choice. 2. Bullies can see that a kid's parents are fat. Educating one's child about this disease puts bullying in context, and helps them understand. Teaching a child about your health condition is not burdening them.\",\n \"Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights You are right, parents cannot prevent their children from becoming obese unless they are aware how to do it. But nowadays there is a lot of information on this issue: online, books, TV, doctors etc. etc. And yet childhood obesity is one of the most serious health challenges for our century. Some parents simply do not care about the issue and are reluctant to get educated. And something has to be done to change it. Parents have to be legally responsible for letting their child become obese!\",\n \"Fatness ! Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... “Obesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.” Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a “perfect” body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... “The Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.” Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of “perfect body.” http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed “too fat” women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are “too fat.” Harm 4: Women who are deemed “too fat” may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro’s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.\",\n \"government should implement a 'fat tax' What counts as \\\"fat\\\" There are different levels of being overweight. There is overweight, and obesity. According to the CDC, if you have a BMI above 24.9 means that you are overweight. Having a BMI of above 30.0 means that you are obese. If you could please clarify which or both you are suggesting this fat tax against, I would appreciate it greatly. Secondly, I would like to ask, are you suggesting we tax the elderly who are obese? Because, due to various problems (balance difficulties, joint problems, etc.) it may become difficult for elders to exercise. Especially elders who are not incredibly wealthy. Would these count as medically known reasons for being overweight? Especially since some elders with some joint difficulties may find it more easy to exercise, while others may not. Thirdly, with this \\\"Obama care penalty\\\" logic. Are you thinking that anybody who is fat and is using health care that is necessary because of their fatness? Or do you think that anybody who is fat gets this tax no matter if they are using government healthcare or not. It would be helpful to clarify. I got my information on BMI from http://www.cdc.gov... Thank you, and I look forward to your rebuttal.\",\n \"We should not have to live alongside sex offenders, drug addicts and the fat These days, many parents do not allow their kids to walk or cycle to school as they may have done themselves when they were teenagers. This is largely due to the risk, perceived or real, of their children coming into contact with any of the numerous paedophiles and drug pushers that now infest our neighbourhoods. However, there is another category of undesirable people that kids would be very unlikely to encounter either walking or cycling to school: the fat. However, when they get to school, normal children are forced to mix with overweight children and, worse still, they are made to treat them with dignity and respect. This is despite the fact that the unhealthy eating habits that lead to obesity are \\\"contagious\\\" and there is \\\"a strong link between teenagers own weight and that of their closest peers.\\\" http://news.bbc.co.uk... As a society, we don't allow teenage drug addicts to be educated alongside regular students and we don't allow convicted paedophiles to become teachers, so why do we continue to put our kids in harms way by allowing fat children to attend the same schools as them? Obviously, some people are overweight due to medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and Prada Willi syndrome, and these unfortunate people should not be considered part of the problem. However, the fact is that over 99% of the fat are overweight because they consume more calories than they expend, in other words they are gluttonous and lazy. This is their choice, just as drug addicts choose to snort cocaine or inject themselves with heroin. http://www.nhs.uk... Isn't it about time we woke up and realised that sex offenders, illegal drug users and the fat should be housed in separate communities in order to prevent them from harming decent, hard-working people and their children? Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...\",\n \"Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.\",\n \"Fat people live longer than skinny people. Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines \\\"fat\\\" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that \\\"fat\\\" means \\\" having more body fat than is optimally healthy\\\". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Mar�a Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: ■Type 2 Diabetes ■Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke ■Metabolic Syndrome ■Cancer ■Sleep Apnea ■Osteoarthritis ■Gallbladder Disease ■Fatty Liver Disease ■Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away.\",\n \"how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.\",\n \"physical education should be abolished Thank you for your reply. Pro says: \\\"obesity can cause diabetes\\\" My answer: Maintaining a child's health is not the school's responsibility. The school is solely there to educate the child. The child's health is the parent's responsibility. If the child was fed properly and healthy at home, there would be no \\\"obesity\\\" for these children. This PE period takes away from the child learning.\",\n \"Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems The CDC (2012) defines obese as being over 200lbs and less than 6ft tall. Most stocky men are \\\"obese\\\", and you are saying that their weight makes them incapable of parenting, when it doesn't even prohibit them from playing sports in most cases. Also 1/3rd of Americans are obese (CDC), what youre suggesting would take children away from 30% of our country and put them in foster care. Obesity is a consequence of a national disregard for diet, not immorality.\",\n \"It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing \\\"rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. \\\" Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, \\\"I am competent/incompetent\\\") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; \\\"it was beneath his dignity to cheat\\\"; \\\"showed his true dignity when under pressure\\\" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; \\\"physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients\\\" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: \\\"It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility\\\" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London \\\" Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily\\\" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...\",\n \"Being overweight is bad 1. Being overweight can't increase risk of diabetes. 2. Fat makes you warmer so it lets you be warmer in the winter. 3. Anyone can change a commment or post on wikipedia so it is almost no use of putting wikipedia on there 4. It isn't bad for your mental health I await my opponent's rebuttal\",\n \"Being overweight is bad 1. Being overweight can increase the risk of diabetes. 2. It's bad for physical health. 3. It's bad for your mental health. 4. It also can increase the risk of kidney disease. 5. It makes you weigh more so it takes more energy to walk or run. 6. It reduces life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is why being overweight is bad. I thank whoever joins this debate. Vote Pro please. Thank you\",\n \"America is NOT obese. I agree that childhood obesity is rising, but that is the parents' problem. Not everybody else's. If the parent thinks the child is too overweight, then they can do something, not concern the rest of America with it. And most of the time, with the negative emotions, it's because if they're feeling depressed, or stressed, or sad, or anything else negative, they'll just sit on their lazy a$$es and stare at the TV all day, thinking \\\"Oh, whoa is me. I'm getting fat because I'm depressed.\\\" You know what, no, they're not getting fat because they're depressed. They're getting fat because they're LAZY.\",\n \"Obesity Skinny people also have the chance to gain weight by eating more and exercising less. But on the other hand it is also possible for obese people to eat less and exercise more. Anorexia and obesity are both terrible sicknesses but there are many ways to cure those sicknesses.\",\n \"Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights Yes, the risk for developing various health issues increases. We as humans need to remember that most people are not educated about the health issues that will arise from being obese. This should not be overlooked. People can not talk about obesity without talking about education on obesity. So yes, this debate is just as much about education as obesity. Should kids be taken away from their parents for not having control over their parents influenced the child.\",\n \"The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...\",\n \"We should introduce a 'fat tax' Statistics (1) More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. Adults are obese. Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%). (2) Non-Hispanic meaning not Latin American e.g the United States and its Hispanic neighbours. Obesity is higher among middle age adults, 40-59 years old (39.5%) than among younger adults, age 20-39 (30.3%) or adults over 60 or above (35.4%) adults. Amazingly, (3) shows that no state or territory has <20% of obesity in the US population. Australia is also horrendous, (4) in the fact that 63% of adults are obese, 25% of children are overweight or obese and that it is the 2nd highest contributor to burden of disease.Overweight and obesity (high BMI) is the second highest contributor to burden of disease, after dietary risks. Smoking is the third highest. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. Was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. Dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. Never the less, it proves that the USA, UK and Australia is some of the most obese countries in the world, thanks to Con's points. (5) Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese.39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2014, and 13% were obese. Most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight. 42 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2013. Obesity is preventable. NHS and diseases The tax was introduced in October 2011, (6) in an attempt to limit the population’s intake of fatty foods, and reduce obesity rates. According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47% of Danes are overweight and 13% are obese (UK). Any food with a saturated fat content of more than 2.3 per cent will be taxed at a rate of 16 kronor (£1.85) per kilogram of saturated fat. The move will add the equivalent of 25p to a pack of butter and 8p on a pack of crisps. This is statistically working on our society, changing peoples decisions on food. Appallingly, with obesity numbers rising so fast — with it estimated that by 2050 the cost to the NHS (at current prices) could reach £9.7 billion a year — the wider cost to society might push £50 billion (7) The National Health Service: in the UK, a system that provides free medical care and is paid for through taxes. The NHS should certainly not be wasting money on obese patients, but with obesity, comes many diseases. (8) High blood pressure- Above people who are 25, 75 million people that are obese suffer from High blood pressure. Diabetes- 90% of people who have diabetes suffer from type 2 diabetes. Heart disease- people who are under 45 have the greatest risk of getting heart diseases. Cancer- if you are obese you have a 50% chance of getting cancer. Depression- depression increases by 55% if you are obese. Gallstones- If you are a women, gallstones can deeply effect you. There are many more diseases, but I just named a few. Impact on the Minority Con stated at the bottom of paragraph five that 'most people don't likes paying taxes, especially when they do nothing for them'. In the fact that 63% of adults in Australia, 34.9% of US, 25% of UK and 39% of adults world wide are obese; don't you think we are in a way helping the wider people to live. Helping decrease cancer risks and other diseases, we are truly helping our society. 'Most people including myself eat chocolate, cake, and biscuits yet have a healthy lifestyle. It is not harmful to treat yourself now and then' states Con. I agree, but most people cannot control themselves and end up eating more than one/two pieces. I do a lot of sport, so when I go to school with my friends we have ice-cream every lunch and share lollies. (Now I think about it) my friends are overweight. Unless you even up the food with fitness it is okay, but some people could have 1 large fries from MacDonald's, chips, lollies, gum and 2 pieces of chocolate cake. You can't burn that off unless you do 5 hours f intense training. Burpees are hard- jump, push up, get up and repeat.(9) You have to do 524 burpees to burn off 1 large fries from Maccas. Fatter foods 'Many foods like cheese, butter, and milk will fall into the unhealthy label, when actually they can be good for you, and better than alternatives like margarine, so people trying to eat more healthily may find it harder financially to achieve their goal'- Con. Instead of full cream milk or fat milk, there is always the alternative of skim milk or low fat milk. Milk isn't unhealthy as it has many essential vitamins like calcium. Calcium helps your body develop stronger bones, hair, skin, nails and in general it is good for your body. Margarine and butter are basically the same. Butter has more fat than margarine but margarine has more chemicals than butter. The two won't be 'fat' because for a sandwich or a piece of toast you only add a bit. Unless you go eating the whole tub, margarine and butter are healthy in small quantities. Technically, financial matters will even out. If everyone ate healthily in the first place, we wouldn't have to get the 'fat tax.' Besides that, there would be less waist on money and resources for obese people. Such as the 'lager people ambulance'. Cheap food isn't good for you, you would end up getting not enough vitamins into your body. Then you'd have to use money on pills, treatment, doctors appointments etc. It all works out in the end. Fat tax benefits The fat tax will ensure the hospitals facilities and ambulances, it will make our society healthier, it will decrease the amount of deaths and will make the environment more of a healthy happy place. Overall, the Fat Tax will certainly be of benefit to our economy. Decreasing deaths and diseases whilst increasing well-being and healthy life style, the Fat Tax is a brilliant invention; helping our society to be a healthier place. Sources:' Statics' websites: (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://www.aihw.gov.au... (5) http://www.who.int... 'NHS and diseases' websites:(6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (7) http://www.macmillandictionary.com...(8) https://www.mediweightlossclinics.com... 'Impact on the minority' websites:(9) http://www.urbandojo.com... 'Fat Tax benefits' websites:(10) http://www.heraldsun.com.au...\",\n \"Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights Obesity is a major medical deficit in America. If the parents are extremely over weigh, then they aren't capable of taking care of the children, there aren't able to go outside and work and other things of that nature. The parents have created a window of embarrassment for their children, which can also lead to suicide for the children if the harassment is too harsh for the child to bear. Parent obesity causes loss of parental rights. Parents can loose their parental rights for the mere fact that they aren't capable of taking care of the child. And separation of the child and parent can impact the child deeply. If a parent is obese your not teaching your child about their disease, your showing what not to do, and what not to be, which is double messaging. For example if you are drinking and you tell your child not to, how are you supposed to inform them that this wrong when your continuing to drink. Childrens training grounds are based from home. Your children are supposed to take after you in positive ways. How are you teaching your children what no to do when you continue to do it, and by the time you actually get it in your child's head that this isn't the way to go, your gone from this world your self for over eating! As you can see there are many reasons why children are burdened by their parents obesity. When parents are in and out of the hospitable, the financial capabilities take a toll on the child, especially when it deals with getting things they need and sometimes what they want.\",\n \"Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.\",\n \"Junk Food leads to obesity. Junk food leads to obesity. Take potato chips for instance. They have a lot of fat in them.\",\n \"America is NOT obese. True, to say \\\"America is obese\\\" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country \\\"obese\\\", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...\",\n \"Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.\",\n \"Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Childhood obesity is one of the most serious problem in the 21st Century. It is one of the Global problem and it is steadily affecting many Low, Middle and High income class families and their children all over the world. Overweight and Obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and likely to develop Non communicable diseases like Diabetes and Cardio -Vascular diseases at a younger age of Overweight and Obesity. These above causes are mainly based on the advertisements of junk foods from TV and from online Network and from other media that create and absorb children to eat junk foods which results in child obesity.\",\n \"Should Americans get help beating obesity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a biological problem. The actual predisposition to obesity of all people is 23%. That's a lot less than what they show on TV. You also got the other thought wrong. Fat people try to prove to others that being fat is really normal and people SHOULD be fat in the first place. For example, the weird hit \\\"All About That Bass\\\" by Megan Trainor is filled with hate against people who AREN'T fat. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...\",\n \"Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle Those studies have been refuted with more recent research that proves that eating habits are the main true cause of obesity at any age. ????????????????? eating habits with no excercise yes but there was more calorise in bread and dripping and fish and chips than there is in a mcdonalds,fact. Folk do not walk anywhere now, they do very little now so eat through bordom. A fit person can eat MORE than an obese person because they burn it off, fact, and proven myself personally. It is not the food it is idleness.\",\n \"americas weight probem is only getting worse The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.\",\n \"Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.\",\n \"Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such Many people suffering from overeating do so compulsively as a result of psychological problems. For example a depressed person might comfort eat to feel better. Why should these people be punished instead of helped?\",\n \"Obesity yes, exercise is important. I guess what my main concern is people's assumption's about obese people. If you see someone over weight, do not assume its because they over eat. If you see someone thin, do not assume it's because they are healthy. The idea of being over weight has misled people into judging \\\"fat\\\" people.\",\n \"Being overweight is bad 1. Where is your evidence? 2. Wikipedia, is formed by professionals. Only people who have a proof website can change it. 3.Being overweight is a known risk factor for heart disease 4. Research more before posting a comment because being overweight CAN INCREASE risk of diabetes. www.news-medical.net/?id=32912 www.mamashealth.com/eat/oweightdam.asp Vote Pro please. Thank you\",\n \"More People Should Fat-Shame Women Obesity is a subject I have spend copious time researching.My stance My position is that both morbid obesity and obesity are complex biological subjects that have many causes. Fat-shaming is both cruel and counterproductive. Say no to fat shaming.\",\n \"Diet and exersise!!! You considered nothing I said: Diet is an expensive thing to maintain in some areas. Over 23 million Americans live in a food desert, meaning an area, usually urban, in which it is difficult to by affordable fresh food. And half of those 23 million people are low-income, so they will not have much time for exercise either. When both those intersect in a food desert, obesity is imminent. You may have bananas in your area for pretty cheap, and it's great that it's not expensive to be healthy where you are, but in some areas it is. I don't deny your facts about obesity and preventable disease, and it is a problem, but why are the people suffering from it being much more criticized instead of the local governments for allowing the food deserts to form and stay. Instead of reactive people like you, people have taken a proactive approach to this, building local community gardens with free fresh for for everybody. There are still many people in areas with well-established food security, and to tackle that problem, we once again we don't attack the people affected by unhealthy eating and bad exercise, instead tackling the problem at the source, whatever it may be. By helping these communities and creating a new cultural attitude instead of demeaning them and expecting them to fix themselves on their own, we can finally eradicate the problem. And before making these claims, understand what causes obesity and how it could realistically be fixed. All caps doesn't make you more dominant or correct in this debate. It is showing your adamance towards the second opinion. Sources: https://www.dosomething.org...\",\n \"Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous To start off, The fat acceptance movement seeks to eliminate anti-fat biases. They are also known as the Health At Every Size movement (or simply HAES). HAES is pretty self-explanatory. A good portion of fat activists believe that you can be overweight and healthy, That we should completely disregard the relationship between weight and health. Thing is, I don\\\"t believe that is true and the way they see it is pretty much in black and white. It is NOT that simple. This mentality is misleading and can eventually lead to even worse outcomes. Here\\\"s my first argument:Health and Weight are connected, It is wrong for fat activists to think otherwise because they are factually incorrect. We\\\"ve seen it, Heard it, Experienced it; you name it. We all know that is simply untrue. \\\"Your weight, Your waist size, And the amount of weight gained since your mid-20s can have serious health implications. These factors can strongly influence your chances of developing the following diseases and conditions: Cardiovascular disease, Heart attack, Stroke, Diabetes, Cancer, Arthritis, Gallstones, Asthma, Cataracts, Infertility, Snoring, Sleep apnea\\\"Lets also not forget that excessive weight will damage your knees and wear down the cartilage from the friction. Aside from the unpleasant feeling of your bones grinding together till you collapse, The fatal consequences have become very prevalent. \\\"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2. 8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. \\\" Sources:http://easo. Org/education-portal/obesity-facts-figures/https://www. Hsph. Harvard. Edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/\",\n \"An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn.[1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US.[2] The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few. We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions.[3] Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature.[4] Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for. [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html, accessed 9/12/2011 [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009, http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid=329246AF-5056-B172-B829FC032B70D8DE, accessed 9/14/2011 [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006, http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA24108E-B3C7-4B4D-875A-74F957BF4472/0/ChronicTrendsAlert120063050306.pdf, accessed, 9/14/2011 [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/11/opinion/la-ed-obesity-20110411, accessed 9/12/2011\",\n \"Obesity is a disease. 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay \\\"healthy\\\" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.\",\n \"Smoking is as bad a Obesity Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;\",\n \"Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle It is indisputable that not everyone has the same body shape and frame. We genetically inherit many of our physical features and obesity may also be genetically inherited. Therefore it is not right to prosecute a parent who despite providing a healthy lifestyle has an overweight child.\",\n \"Being fat causes problems for everyone Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].\",\n \"Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres... Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pressure, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes etc. are the cause of over 50% of deaths in the Arab world. If a fat tax is introduced, fat consumption will fall as consumers save money by buying non-fatty foods. Lower fat and fat-free foods will abound and the society will benefit. Citizens will be leaner, healthier, happier and more productive.\",\n \"Fat Tax Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...\",\n \"Obesity I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.\",\n \"Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle\",\n \"Obesity In America should we do something I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems\\\"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.\",\n \"Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...\",\n \"Fatness ! Okay so I was lazy on the evidence, still the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. Because you didn't always address what I had said, it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. But I accept, I will present more evidence. Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. So I will go through your answer piece by piece. Fat is a choice. Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. Fact. There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. (1). So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience: Oxford definition: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury. With this definition many things can fit under this classification. For example, alcohol poisoning: 1, 'disorder of structure of function in the human' yes. 2, 'especially on the produces specific symptoms, acts in specific location' yes. 'Not simply the direct result of physical injury' yes. And so definitions are man made and broad, so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description, that it counts as the same thing as everything else under that category. There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them, because they are innocent victims. You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. Fat people are just unfortunate enough to have a weakness that has a effect on their appearance. Your second paragraph I answer above. Though I will add that I say (most the time) because you cannot rule everything out 100% if you are serious about science. It is mearly a humbleness, in practice, as if said above, people are fat because they have eaten too much bad stuff with not enough exercise. A tiny fraction has genetic disorders. Your third paragraph. So the statement you repeat at the top you do not dispute. So we agree that's accurate. You say it is not relevant to the dabate, well its relevant to your point about it being a disease like I have said above. You catergorize it as a disease, because diseases have an understanding by the general public to be inevitable. Therefore your point about glamorising them stands legitimate because its not their fault and you feel sorry for them and they shouldn't be discriminated because of something they have no control over. This is why the point WAS relevant because it explains why it is self inflicted and why your labelling of disease was an attempt to mislead the audience. Also, still on your third paragraph. I do not provide any evidence for fat people harming anyone when in the media, because that is not what I am trying to say. Glamorising fatness, as opposed to fighting it, is not the best choice. Nor can you do both. We want fat people to hate being fat lets be real! anyone who loves the person enough to want to see them grow old does anyway. Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. This could lead many overweight people remaining overweight, this could be because it could serve as an \\\"identity\\\" for example. Your fourth paragraph: I don't think you fully understood me there? The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. Them being, bad food education, stigma attached to \\\"greens\\\" and attitude towards sweets, unfulfilling jobs and shallow materialistic society that lead to depression and thus addiction (which is fatness, as addiction to food is what causes fatness), alcohol culture, not shameful to be lazy (to some). So how does the fact that people are getting ill from food reflect something good about the society? it doesn't make sense too me... you make this speech about liberalism and rights of the (diseased) but it has no relevance that I can see. I am not saying if someone is funny and qualified but fat, that one should offer the job to the same man who is just skinnier. I am saying we should not be pushing for, and prioritizing putting fat people on T.V in some political correctness frenzy. As fat is a problem that needs help and prevention, not more acceptance. More acceptance = more fatness More fatness = more death. Not good. And I could find evidence suggesting that if something is accepted then people will feel more comfortable doing it, I just take that as obvious. 5th paragraph. I am not saying show the top 8% only. I am saying we should show the middle 80% but also you must remember that its not 8% of women are skinny, its 100% of women are a healthy (quite skinny) normal size, and their diet can change that. If 60% of women in society are obese, should we show more obese people? No, we should not deliberately show more fat people to make the fat population feel better about their life deteriorating addiction. I don't fully understand what your point is on this paragraph so excuse me.. 6th. Don't understand what your trying to say here. 7th. No there isn't anything wrong with that. We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. 8th. When I say people with neurological or personality disorders I mean people who might normally be considered dangerous or completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. And so showing their real self is good to decrease stigma and help sufferers belong. It could be any other life effecting conditions, such as multiple-sclerosis, multiple personality, schizophrenia etc. Fatness is fatness, they may have a 'personality disorder' its called laziness, greediness etc. The are fat because they where to greedy or lazy to stop it, its not fair to put a sufferer of schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis in this same basket. Indeed its a cop out for a fat person to call it a disease, it reduces responsibility. Your 9th. What? its a hypothetical situation what facts could I of possibly got? Answer the question and stop avoiding them all, it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. (bare in mind I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive and others are just hard to find) the points still stand though and have not been disputed. Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. Your 10th. I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. Again with the avoidance, proof is here (paragraph 11) Paragraph 12. Ye it might be seen as respectful to be fat in a starving country of course! it shows you have money and you are probably more healthy than the others who are starving. It is not respectable, solely to be fat. Its what it says about you, in that culture that is respected. Not the fact that they are lazy and greedy. paragraph 12, yes health foods are for talking obesity. So what, I don't get why you are saying that? I would if I was in charge yes. 1. Hu F. Genetic predictors of obesity. In: Hu F, ed. Obesity Epidemiology. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2008; 437\\\"\\\"460.\",\n \"Diet and exersise!!! \\\"processed\\\" its called diet and EXERCISE!!! Also, it isnt super expensive to be healthy! bananas are the most cheap food you can buy! Obese people need pressure... FAT ACCEPTANCE IS DEATH ACCEPTANCE!!! it isnt only obesity but being overweight that kills! \\\"In 2015, nearly four million people died from disease related to their weight, most commonly from heart disease. But only 60% were technically obese, which is defined as a body mass index over 30. The other 40%, or 1.6 million people, were overweight but not obese.\\\" (https://www.theguardian.com...) People go crazy on people for smoking when in reality OBESITY KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SMOKING (https://www.menshealth.com...)\",\n \"Being fat causes problems for everyone The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.\",\n \"Obesity Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.\",\n \"Obesity is a public health issue . Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.\",\n \"Obesity epidemics justify mandatory calorie counts Obesity is a major problem around the world, and particularly in the United States. It is so bad that it certainly justifies taking decisive actions such as mandating the labeling of menus in restaurants.\",\n \"America is NOT obese. As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the \\\"obesity problem\\\" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.\",\n \"Obesity is a public health issue . All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults. [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm\",\n \"Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!\",\n \"Obesity is a disease. Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.\",\n \"Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated \\\"Cancer is a disease\\\". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.\",\n \"Obesity is a disease I accept! Thank you for instigating this debate, @AndDontCallMeShirley. Good luck to my oponent...\",\n \"Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.\",\n \"Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not \\\"choose\\\" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.\",\n \"Obesity In America should we do something Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it\",\n \"Obesity is a disease. Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.\",\n \"Obesity is a disease Resolution: \\\"Obesity [1] is a disease [2].\\\"I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the \\\"Pro\\\" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Obesity is a disease. Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":30,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise\nElectronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11","Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise\nThe elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11","Efficiency\nVoting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11","allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections\nElectronic voting can make the franchise more accessible","Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post).\nHi and thanks for taking part in the debate. I shall now deal with each of the points you raised. 1: AV is complicated. You first raised the argument that the Alternative Vote system is complicated, and that people would be less likely to vote with a complicated system. If you have a child, and you ask that child 'which chocolate bar would you like', the child might answer something like 'mmm I'll have a snickers but if they don't have a snickers I'll have a galaxy'. That child just understood the basic concept of Alternative Vote: preferences. It is not at all complicated. You also raised the point that AV is only used in 3 countries worldwide. What is often overlooked is that STV (single transferable vote) is a system that is exactly the same as Alternative Vote, but used in multi member constituencies. This system is used in a large number of countries worldwide, including some member states of the European Union. NO other European Union member state uses First Past the Post. 2: AV is not as proportionate as you think. Alternative Vote does not claim to be a proportional voting system. But neither is First Past the Post, so in trying to establish which of these two voting systems is better - there is no point entertaining any ideas of proportionality. Secondly, you raise the fear of endless coalition governments and put forward the idea that the 3rd party - the Liberal Democrats would always have the power to choose governments. This is actually what has just happened under First Past the Post. In truth, this fear of coalitions is unfounded and irrational. Many of our European neighbours 'endure' coalitions through most governments, and it becomes the political way. There is nothing to be afraid of. Examples of countries where successful coalitions dominate include much of Scandinavia (take a look at Norway, Finland etc) While you raise the issue of the results made by Alternative Vote as being 'undemocratic' you fail to defend First Past the Post itself as being 'democratic'. I would argue that if we had a democracy scale in front of us, Alternative Vote would far be considered 'more democratic' than First Past the Post. The fact of the matter is, that First Past the Post leads to minority rule. As I stated in my first posted argument, only on government in the last 100 years (in 1931) enjoyed an actual 'majority' ie. more than 50% of the vote. It is surely impossible to defend minority rule as being 'democratic' in nature. If we are comparing First Past the Post and Alternative Vote on a democratic level, I refer you to this study carried out recently at the London School of Economics: http://www2.lse.ac.uk... Here, 22 voting theory experts from around the world compared voting systems to see which one was most fitting for UK democracy. Every single one of them rejected First Past the Post. 10 of them chose the Alternative Vote. (the other 12 chose Approval Voting, but we are not debating that here). 3. Changing to AV would be costly. This is a lie (though it is not your lie). Firstly, you have included in your argument the sum of £91 million for the cost of the referendum. This figure is completely irrelevant seeming as this money has now been spent whether or not we implement AV. You go on to quote a figure of £130 million to be spent on electronic counting machines to be used with the new system. This is false. Electronic counting machines are unnecessary, and the Electoral Commission has already stated that they would be unnecessary. In Australia (where they use AV) they continue to count by hand, and do not use electronic counting at all. That cuts the cost from £250 million to £26 million, to be spent on informing the public on how Alternative Voting works. This is an absolutely minuscule figure in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that it is to enhance the quality of our democracy. Who can put a price tag on democracy? 4. AV is unfair. You use an example how someone who finishes first in the original count - ie, someone who wins under First Past the Post, can go on to lose to someone originally placed 3rd or 4th. Again, in Australia, where they use the system, only in less than 5% of cases do those who are placed 1st after the first round of counting, do those candidates fail to go on to win. First Past the Post is the system that is unfair. Here is (fake) example: ROUND ONE (FIRST PAST THE POST RESULTS ROUND) Conservatives: 35% Labour: 33% Liberal Democrats: 24% Green Party - 8% Ideologically, 65% of the voters above voted for a party either considered Liberal or Progressive. The majority (though not all, I concede) of these voters would be more likely to want a Progressive, or Liberal candidate & government, than a Conservative, right-wing one. Under AV, with the Greens eliminated a second round of voting might look like this: ROUND TWO Conservatives 36% Labour 37% Liberal Democrats 27% Still no winner, as no candidate has achieved 50% of the voter. Liberal Democrats are now eliminated and their votes redistributed. ROUND THREE Conservatives 43% Labour 57% ++++LABOUR WIN++++ Not only do we now have a winner, but we have a winner that over 50% of the electorate have specified a preference for. Over 50%of the population said they would prefer Labour to the Conservatives, and that's what we have. This is MAJORITY RULE. This is fair, and democratic. The only way it could be improved is if it was a proportional system. But neither is First Past the Post, so FPTP cannot criticise AV in this respect. First Past the Post would have simply produced a winner who only managed to achieve 35% of the popular vote, and 43% preferential overall. This candidate did not have broad appeal. Under First Past the Post he/she (not to be sexist) could potentially have contually been re-elected by a minority, despite a majority preferring someone else. I ask my debate partner the following: How can First Past the Post be defended as being democratic when it has been shown to produce minority rule 99% of the time. What price would be acceptable to pay for improving the quality of democracy in the country? What he fears from a coalition government, when they work so successfully in many other developed countries?","allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections\nElectronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion"],"string":"[\n \"Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise\\nElectronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise\\nThe elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"Efficiency\\nVoting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections\\nElectronic voting can make the franchise more accessible\",\n \"Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post).\\nHi and thanks for taking part in the debate. I shall now deal with each of the points you raised. 1: AV is complicated. You first raised the argument that the Alternative Vote system is complicated, and that people would be less likely to vote with a complicated system. If you have a child, and you ask that child 'which chocolate bar would you like', the child might answer something like 'mmm I'll have a snickers but if they don't have a snickers I'll have a galaxy'. That child just understood the basic concept of Alternative Vote: preferences. It is not at all complicated. You also raised the point that AV is only used in 3 countries worldwide. What is often overlooked is that STV (single transferable vote) is a system that is exactly the same as Alternative Vote, but used in multi member constituencies. This system is used in a large number of countries worldwide, including some member states of the European Union. NO other European Union member state uses First Past the Post. 2: AV is not as proportionate as you think. Alternative Vote does not claim to be a proportional voting system. But neither is First Past the Post, so in trying to establish which of these two voting systems is better - there is no point entertaining any ideas of proportionality. Secondly, you raise the fear of endless coalition governments and put forward the idea that the 3rd party - the Liberal Democrats would always have the power to choose governments. This is actually what has just happened under First Past the Post. In truth, this fear of coalitions is unfounded and irrational. Many of our European neighbours 'endure' coalitions through most governments, and it becomes the political way. There is nothing to be afraid of. Examples of countries where successful coalitions dominate include much of Scandinavia (take a look at Norway, Finland etc) While you raise the issue of the results made by Alternative Vote as being 'undemocratic' you fail to defend First Past the Post itself as being 'democratic'. I would argue that if we had a democracy scale in front of us, Alternative Vote would far be considered 'more democratic' than First Past the Post. The fact of the matter is, that First Past the Post leads to minority rule. As I stated in my first posted argument, only on government in the last 100 years (in 1931) enjoyed an actual 'majority' ie. more than 50% of the vote. It is surely impossible to defend minority rule as being 'democratic' in nature. If we are comparing First Past the Post and Alternative Vote on a democratic level, I refer you to this study carried out recently at the London School of Economics: http://www2.lse.ac.uk... Here, 22 voting theory experts from around the world compared voting systems to see which one was most fitting for UK democracy. Every single one of them rejected First Past the Post. 10 of them chose the Alternative Vote. (the other 12 chose Approval Voting, but we are not debating that here). 3. Changing to AV would be costly. This is a lie (though it is not your lie). Firstly, you have included in your argument the sum of £91 million for the cost of the referendum. This figure is completely irrelevant seeming as this money has now been spent whether or not we implement AV. You go on to quote a figure of £130 million to be spent on electronic counting machines to be used with the new system. This is false. Electronic counting machines are unnecessary, and the Electoral Commission has already stated that they would be unnecessary. In Australia (where they use AV) they continue to count by hand, and do not use electronic counting at all. That cuts the cost from £250 million to £26 million, to be spent on informing the public on how Alternative Voting works. This is an absolutely minuscule figure in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that it is to enhance the quality of our democracy. Who can put a price tag on democracy? 4. AV is unfair. You use an example how someone who finishes first in the original count - ie, someone who wins under First Past the Post, can go on to lose to someone originally placed 3rd or 4th. Again, in Australia, where they use the system, only in less than 5% of cases do those who are placed 1st after the first round of counting, do those candidates fail to go on to win. First Past the Post is the system that is unfair. Here is (fake) example: ROUND ONE (FIRST PAST THE POST RESULTS ROUND) Conservatives: 35% Labour: 33% Liberal Democrats: 24% Green Party - 8% Ideologically, 65% of the voters above voted for a party either considered Liberal or Progressive. The majority (though not all, I concede) of these voters would be more likely to want a Progressive, or Liberal candidate & government, than a Conservative, right-wing one. Under AV, with the Greens eliminated a second round of voting might look like this: ROUND TWO Conservatives 36% Labour 37% Liberal Democrats 27% Still no winner, as no candidate has achieved 50% of the voter. Liberal Democrats are now eliminated and their votes redistributed. ROUND THREE Conservatives 43% Labour 57% ++++LABOUR WIN++++ Not only do we now have a winner, but we have a winner that over 50% of the electorate have specified a preference for. Over 50%of the population said they would prefer Labour to the Conservatives, and that's what we have. This is MAJORITY RULE. This is fair, and democratic. The only way it could be improved is if it was a proportional system. But neither is First Past the Post, so FPTP cannot criticise AV in this respect. First Past the Post would have simply produced a winner who only managed to achieve 35% of the popular vote, and 43% preferential overall. This candidate did not have broad appeal. Under First Past the Post he/she (not to be sexist) could potentially have contually been re-elected by a minority, despite a majority preferring someone else. I ask my debate partner the following: How can First Past the Post be defended as being democratic when it has been shown to produce minority rule 99% of the time. What price would be acceptable to pay for improving the quality of democracy in the country? What he fears from a coalition government, when they work so successfully in many other developed countries?\",\n \"allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections\\nElectronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Recent voter ID laws major purpose is to keep people from voting (details) 1)The often said reason for these new voter ID laws is to prevent and to eliminate the problem of voter fraud. However the fact remains that voter fraud really does not happen. For example over a 5 year period the government found only 70 cases of voter fraud. http://www.factcheck.org... 2)So why would state governments take time out of their day to institute voter ID laws when there isn't a problem with voter fraud? Is it because they want to waste a billion dollars every 4 years in order to pay for the ID's? http://www.democrats.org... I doubt that is the reason. 3)Well let's see what a political strategist for the SC senate republican Caucus says about an AP report that voter ID laws are affecting blacks more than whites, his response was, \"Nice! [this] proves EXACTLY why we need VOTER ID in SC.\" http://www.thesunnews.com... https://twitter.com... 4)Want to know what Wisconsin republicans did after they passed a law requiring voters to get special ID from the DMV in order to vote? Well they closed DMV's in heavily Black and democratic neighborhoods. http://wisconsinwave.org... http://www.searchingforchetbaker.com... 5)In 2008 alone at least 5 million people showed up to vote but found that they either did not have the right ID or had been purged from the voter rolls. http://www.opednews.com... 6)How many more people will be unable to vote in 2012 because of new voter laws? Well 21 million American voters currently do not contain the proper voter ID's the new laws require. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Conclusion: The only reason a government would enact laws that waste billions of dollars and makes it so harder for everyone to vote and makes it so millions are unable to vote on election day is because that government wants to keep people from voting.","Technology to give all a vote I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate. When we lived in small tribes the people could stand up for their needs and they would be heard. I believe what the ancient Greeks did was to solve a problem that there where to many people and they had to design a system of democracy as we know today. Voices travel through regional systems and voting happens only to choose the new leader. But i think people should vote on more than they leaders. Their leaders should provide the best possible course of action and the people then vote for or against it. Technology allows us to do this. This must be a better form of governance than what we have now because a government should not have the power to make choices without understandingredients what the people want.","Technology remains insecure and a security risk. Technology is enhancing security, not threatening it. Measures are being implemented to ensure cyber-security and further technology is creating new, local, initiatives for security on the ground. Ushahidi Crowdmapping - an interactive, collective, mapping tool - was used to expose, and remember, political violence that occurred in Kenya’s 2007 presidential election[1]. [1] See further readings: Ushahidi, 2013.","Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy Only where the ballot offers a \"none of the above\" option can compulsory voting being truly democratic. However, where this is the case if the \"none of the above\" option achieves over 50% of the vote does democracy simply fail and the state fall into anarchy? that would be truly democratic, although, hardly pragmatic. Consider that in most British elections the majority is not in fact the winning party, but in fact, the non-voters.","Resolved : The Electoral College should be Removed My opponent argues that the electoral college system is superior to direct democracy because the delegates can make a more intelligent decision than the majority. Ignoring the elitism, \"faithless electing,\" where electors vote other than their promise, has only happened 158 times in all American history, and has never had an effect on the election result [1]. Thus, the only distortion of democracy instated in the electoral college is the disproportionate voting described last round. My opponent argues that the Electoral College favors republicanism, where voters choose representatives. In my proposal, voters elect a governing President directly, so both proposals are republican; however, my system does not give voters in underpopulated states extra votes and does not implement a system that counts a dissenting population towards assent. Further, my proposal is more favoring than the Electoral College to the political minorities of every state, because these minorities are not counted towards the candidates they vote against. Thirdly, my opponent contests that the Electoral College is \"fairer\" to small states, when in fact, it is unfair to the people living in more populous states. Direct election would yield a one-man-one-vote system, which is fair to everyone in the United States, while the electoral college gives people in rural states four times as much electoral power as those in urban states. Discrimination by location is most certainly unfair. I would like to clarify that I did not contest the creation of third parties; rather, I stated that the Electoral College prevents third parties from becoming successful, and, in fact, causes them to serve against their purpose. There is no advantage to the Electoral College; it merely distorts election results by discrimination and abuse of the minority vote and squashes third parties. Thus, it should be removed. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...","Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting I will begin by extending my thanks to tylergraham95 for engaging with me in this debate. In this round, I shall present my own case as to why voting ought to be compulsory. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTION 1. Democracy - according to Encarta, is a democratic nation; a country with a government that has been freely elected by the eligible electorate. 2. Vote - according to American Heritage, is an opinion case in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. Compulsory - according to Merriam-Webster this means mandatory; obligatory Ought, according to Encarta, expresses desirability. For example, if someone says \"you ought to fix the sink; it's been running for ages,\" that person is implying that it would be desirable to fix the sink. It may therefore be useful to define one more term: desirable, according to Merriam-Webster, denotes that something is advantageous or beneficial. Consequently, it is my burden in this round to show that compulsory voting is desirable (beneficial), whereas Con must show that it is not. PRO's CASE Now that we have a clearer understanding of the topic, I can present my arguments in support of compulsory voting. It is my thesis and main contention that compulsory voting (CV) is beneficial. If it is, then it is a desirable course of action that a democracy ought to take. Sub-point A: CV will boost turnout. \"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since.\" [1] \"One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting.\" [2] Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. \"The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor\"even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects.\" [3] \"Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt.\" [4] Sub-point C: CV corrects against \"free riders.\" \"The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing...Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold\"it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout...It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour.\" [5] Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. \"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized--ome might say hyper-polarized--by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook.\" [6] Sub-point E: CV reduces violence. \"State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society \"in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives\".\" [3] \"The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate\"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes \"the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change...\"An apathetic electorate\"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely.\" [7] \"Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives\"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent\"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest.\" [4] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS The sources above detail how beneficial CV truly is. It has the capacity to boost voter turnout consistantly, which in turn helps bridge socio-economic gaps with tangible impacts for electoral fairness. Moreover, this type of high-turnout actually enhances governmental legitimacy. CV also combats free riders, who immoral glean benefits from a system in which they do not participate, and it decreases polarization by ensuring that it is not simply the more extreme elements of the electorate who are voting. This also has the potential to reduce sharp and jarring policy shifts as different extreme elements assume power. In addendum, CV has tangible benefits in that it promotes peaceable dialogues over violent clashes. Therefore, CV is beneficial, and I must urge a PRO VOTE! Thank you! SOURCES 1 - Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 2 -Harvard Law Review, 2007, \"The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States,\" 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, \"Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation,\" St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 4 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, \"The case for compulsory voting,\" Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 5 - Lever, Anabelle. Philosophy Professor-London School of Economic and Political Science, 2008, \"Compulsory voting: a critical perspective,\" British Journal of Political Science, [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...], p. 11 6 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, \"Opt-Out Voting,\" Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 7 - Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, Adjunct Prof. of Law at DePaul University \"Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election,\" 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 I apologize in advance for any formatting errors--I am being forced to use a library computer as my own laptop in undergoing repair. Thanks to the judges and to tyler. I looked forward to a great debate!","Voter photo id laws. INTEGRITY This one of those debates that just needs to center around common sense. Common sense tells us that the voting process should have some integrity. We should be able to trust that the official elected to office was elected by a majority and not by a small group of people engaging in fraud. None of us wants our vote canceled out by somebody who voted twice. Election fraud even if supposedly rare now is something that needs to remain rare and with the citizens of America (and probably several other countries), becoming more divided over politics are also becoming more incentivized to win by unethical practices. After all you are keeping a scary monster out of office in the mind of the average person. It is my contention that it is better to take a proactive approach to preventing election fraud. The last thing we want is some Manchurian candidate who gets into office by the extreme effort of a small group of people. We saw something similar to that in DDO\"s last election (not counting the \"emergency\" election that elected Ore-el). A small group of people controlled the outcome of that election and it probably wasn\"t fair. The dangers the Democratic process faces, needs to be anticipated instead of responded to. By the time we know to respond to a stolen election, it is probably too late. I\"m not really alone in this either. This is basically a common sense position that most people agree with. According to one study 75% of voters agree with voter ID laws. If we were to put voter ID laws to a vote, the people would decide it is a good idea. THE MYTH OF VOTER SUPPRESSION I do have legitimate studies that show that voter ID laws in fact do not suppress votes, but before I reveal those, I want to explain the voting process so the voters can understand why this is the case. Being turned away at the polls, does not indicate being turned away from voting. What happens to a voter if they show up without a photo ID in states with voter ID laws is that they receive what is known as a provisional ballot. They vote on this ballot and a lot of times, no further effort is needed on the voter\"s part. Other times the voter may receive a letter in the mail just to check a few boxes and return to insure they have their vote counted, and that they actually cast the vote. [1] I also want to take the time to note that reasonable accommodations are made to help people vote who would be overly affected by voter ID laws. Accommodations allowed by most states: =607;1.\"Have religious objections to being photographed (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin) =607;2.Are indigent (Indiana, Tennessee) =607;3.\"Have a reasonable impediment\" to getting an ID (South Carolina) =607;4.Do not have an ID as a result of a recent natural disaster (Texas) =607;5.People who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking and have a \"confidential listing\" (Wisconsin)\" [1] The voter ID laws do not affect absentee ballots or mailed ballots.[1] So if an individual is extremely burdened to get an ID, they can just mail a form. I get these forms in the mail every election cycle. It is actually probably even way more convenient just to check a few boxes, lick the envelope and shove this stuff into a mailbox According to on highly respected news source who used available data from Georgia and Indiana where these laws have been in place for some time: \"(Reuters) - Democratic claims that a large number of Americans could be prevented from voting because of photo identification laws are probably overstated based on evidence from Georgia and Indiana, the two states where the laws have been in place for multiple elections, Reuters found.\" [2] These states have also done a lot to reduce the fear of critics. For example they have made sure to hand out free ID\"s and I see no reason why other states could not replicate that, since it has been so successful. VOTER FRAUD Voter fraud does happen and since ID isn\"t required in many places it is extremely hard to detect. Some other types of voter fraud mentioned in an article by USA Today include \"Critics of voter ID laws also fail to note they are designed not just to stop voter impersonation but also multiple voting, non-citizen voting, people voting in the wrong precinct, out-of-state voting and voting in the names of fictitious people.\" Voter fraud is hard to detect because of the secret nature of the ballot on top of the fact no ID is needed to vote. The highly touted news 21 study has a ton of flaws and is basically trash. This study was done by several college students and funded by very liberal sponsors. There was definitely a conflict of interest which is not enough to discredit the study on its own. The news 21 study was extremely amateur and not useful in any way. \" Essentially, they politely asked for public officials to send them all of their examples they had of election fraud.\"[5] According to their own criticisms of the study; \"[I]t is possible that some jurisdictions which did respond failed to include some cases. Despite the huge News21 public-records request effort, the team received no useful responses from several states. Hundreds of officials responded with short notes \" some handwritten, even coffee-stained \" saying they had no cases of fraud. Some jurisdictions insisted that their computer system lacked the capability to search for election fraud cases. Dozens of jurisdictions flatly refused the requests. For nearly all the data News21 received, there would be some vital piece of information that had been requested specifically but that was missing. [T]here are cases in the database that contain so little detail that they cannot be properly categorized as one kind of fraud or another.\" [5] CONCLUSION I appreciate Four Trouble allowing me to debate this with him. Next round I plan on contesting just about every piece of evidence my opponent has brought forward. Election fraud is real, no legitimate study has been done to know exactly how significant it is but we should proceed with caution and do everything in our power to protect the integrity of our election process. If people think their votes are being erased by those who engage in fraud they will become disenfranchised Thank you. sources 1.http://www.ncsl.org... 2.http://www.reuters.com... 3.http://www.usnews.com... 4.http://www.usatoday.com... 5.http://www.conservativeblog.org...","Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote Perhaps the infrequent nature of public votes is an indication of the level of confidence in the quality of the system. I agree that this does discriminate people who are less from those that are more knowledgeable. Another way of saying this is that it discriminates those that can contribute meaningfully towards the decision from those that cannot. In the majority of cases, the less knowledgeable could become more knowledgeable by reading the relevant materials. Everyone's votes still do still count, however. At the moment, each individual vote taken in isolation is usually almost insignificant in the calculation of the result. This proposal will just alter the level of significance of the vote up or down slightly. In engineering, there is the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. If a telephone line has noise that is too strong, and a signal that is too weak, the signal is lost amongst the noise and the communication is useless. Uninformed voters are the noise of the system, and there are many more of them than informed voters. Thus the signal is too weak compared to the noise. This means that decisions reached through popular voting are largely irrational. Your last sentence is a little defeatist. To paraphrase, you say that the current system is poor and it won't change. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed system will realistically be adopted, just that the act of making decisions through voting would be improved if it did.","This house would abolish the Electoral College I would like to thank death23 for accepting my challenge. We have agreed to debate this subject in a PM.C1: Undermines American DemocracyThe Electoral College (EC hereafter), undermines the popular vote in the U.S. Presidential elections. Four times through history, the EC went against the public vote (1). Furthermore, the percentage that is won in the EC vote is often far greater than that of the popular vote. For example, in 2012, Presient Obama was won re-election. Although he won 51% of the popular vote, he received over 60% of the EC vote (2). This also creates an interesting problem. It only takes only 11 states to win the EC, and thus the Presidency (3), even if that candidate loses signifigantly in the other states. As a result, it is mathematically possible to win the Presidency with a mere 22% of the popular vote (4). The EC also violates the one-man, one-vote principle. In certain states, the EC makes your vote worth far more than had you voted in another state. An individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly 4 times more in the EC than in Texas, because Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes in a population of 532,668 citizens and Texas 32 lectoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. As FairVote notes \"By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one \"elector\" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one \"elector\" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the EC.\" (5)C3: Swing statesAmong the major disadvantages of the EC is the fact that the election is usually decided by a handful of swing states. Consequently, candidates often focus solely on those 6 of 7 states, while ignoring the rest of the country. Should the EC be abolished, it would force candidates to work to gain votes in all 50 states.C4: The EC lowers voter-turnoutBecause all states have a winner-takes-all system, it discourages people from voting. If you are a conservative living in a solid liberal state (or vice-versa), why would you bother to go out and vote knowing that your vote won't count in the overall EC vote. Taylor B notes (6): \"I think it would be more equitable to force more nationally-focused campaigns. Imagine Barack Obama speaking to crowds in Dallas or Mitt Romney campaigning in New York City. At the very least, it might engage more people in the national debate. If we ever hope to breach the 60% voter turnout threshold last seen in the 1960s (the last two elections have produced around 57%), this is one way to do so. The lawsuits that emerged in the fallout of the 2000 election will be less likely to reappear. When one state decides an election, it behooves all sides to fight for those electoral votes. If the popular vote decided the winner, I doubt we’d see such fallout again.\"Richard J. Cebula and Dennis R. Murphy concludes in his research paper published in Public Choice (7) \"Abolition of the present Electoral College system may not only lead to more voting, but, in particular, to more voting for alternative parties, and hence to more voting for alternative national policies, than presently takes place.\" Over to con.Sources1. http://www.factcheck.org...;2. http://www.fec.gov...;3. http://www.martyduren.com...;4. https://www.squarefree.com...;5. http://www.fairvote.org...;6. http://www.forbes.com...;7. Note that the full source can be accessed by going to sci-hub.cc and Copy+Pasting the URL, though the conclusion is available on the website. http://link.springer.com...;","The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. The US should switch their voting system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote, or Instant Runoff Voting. This would help people to elect who they really want, not who they think has the best chance. Let me give you an example. Here's what happens under our current system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. But you know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have a chance at winning. So instead of throwing away your vote, you vote for the Republican candidate. Here's with the new system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. So you rank him #1 on your ballot. Now out of all the other candidates, your second favorite is the Constitutionalist candidate. So you rank him #2. After that, you'd rather have the Republican candidate than the Democrat, so you rank the Republican #3. Finally, you don't really like any of the others, so you turn in your ballot like such. This would open the door to third-party candidates that don't get their fair say. It IS within our reach. Countries that already use it either for their Congress or leader: Australia Canada Fiji India Ireland New Zealand Papua New Guinea Even some places in the USA already use it, like Berkeley, California Basalt, Colorado And many others. So here's how they count it: They take all of the #1 ranked candidates and get the results. Then, the candidate who has the least amount of votes is taken out, and then they count all of the #2 votes from the people who ranked him #1 and adjust accordingly. They do this until someone reaches over 50% or their are only 2 candidates left. We can change America for the better, we just have to have the willpower.","The Electoral College should be abolished The united states was founded as a democracy, Not just a republic. \" This statement is inherently false and a common misconception (which I debunked previously). The founders intended for it to NOT be a democracy. It has some democratic features, But the point of it being a republic is that it is not a democracy nor was it founded to be one. \"The Electoral College system has gone beyond protecting the minority and has instead subverted the will of the majority on several occasions. I don't think candidates would necessarily campaign only in big cities, America is pretty evenly split between urban and rural\" The point IS to not have a simple majority mob-rule an entire country. It's not about urban and rural, The populations of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Georgia are about 50% of the entire country. Assuming that the % of registered voters is correlated to the % of the population (which it is), Then the ruling president would just pass laws and pander to these 8 states. That means the people living in the other 42 states are not represented in the government. Can you imagine that? The population of 42 states not represented. The electoral college guarantees the representation of all people in the government. \"but in America we have an unrepresented majority in all of the branches of government. It has grown beyond a simple check and it has subverted the will of the people. \" I think there is an unrepresented majority in the house of reps mainly due to gerrymandering, Which is a whole other issue. I think, Historically speaking, The president has been representative of the majority of the country. The electoral college is certainly not perfect. However, In the vast majority of elections the winner turns out to be the one with the most votes, And because of the electoral college that person had to campaign all over the US instead of just a couple states. It might have subverted the will of the people in some cases but that isn't congenitally bad for the country in the long run. I would say the electoral college is defiantly a better system than having the popular vote decide. It might need to be amended to fit the population a little but more, But the system itself, In my opinion, Is the greatest, Fairest one in the world. What other system would you recommend?","US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote http://www.time.com... - this is why voter ID laws are bad. Legal citizens who have residencies and polling places cannot vote because their college ID, birth certificate and drivers licenses are not proof enough. I have a question. Why, if voter fraud that can be stopped by ID's, is enough of a problem that it effects national, state, or township elections and delegitimizes the vote is this a partisan issue? I will tell you why Republicans push this and democrats do not. It is because the legitimate voters that this causes a hurdle for or those whom it stops completely are almost all democrat. The young, the intercity poor and the old retired who may have trouble getting the right ID become disenfranchised and won't make their voices heard because they can't be \"trusted\". In fact, in PA alone, since voter ID laws came in to place voting , which had been moving steadily up, slowed. More people were barred from voting then all the voter fraud in the state for 10 years earlier until now. You say that you are protecting voting when your causing less people to vote. My parents are democrats who live in a republican area after redistricting. For many elections their vote counts for nothing because the republicans always win. We need to be looking at the other ways we are destroying the vote, not the negligible amount of fraud. To answer your question I refer to my previous statement that most of the voter fraud is not done by non-citizens or done in a way that allows for requiring ID. Basically when you move to an area or reach 18 your polling place will contact you and set up your account using government records to identify you as a citizen. If every person eligible in this country voted instead of barring young and poor than fraud would be impossible. By making it harder for people to vote you are making fraud more effective by giving those who commit large scale fraud in ways that do not require ID (electronics rigging, absentee voter impersonation) more potential votes to use. By the way, firearms, alcohol and driving can kill other people. Voter fraud has never effected a major election or even on a county level. Why bar legitimate voters to stop the 10 people casting 1 illegal vote each when the votes of those barred is much greater than fraud that can be stopped by ID laws. You say that it is harmful enough to the people that blocking thousands of voters is important enough to catch them. I say, then why is this an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans and not something agreed upon. I would suggest that republicans are trying to block the Democrats voting base. Is it a coincidence that the legitimate voters barred from voting the most are the young and the poor? Sorry if I made spelling, grammar, punctuation errors or my sources didn't get on. I'm trying to type from an iPod touch, which is difficult.","\"should voting be done online\" points well noted...but are u trying to say that young people have no tym...sir they can't remove just 1 hour frm their work time..by they can party ryt...sir I appritiate that u have IT baground but sir do u ssly don't know that nowadays hacking is so simple...sir nowadays it is so simple to do fraud in a currency note so this is just a internet..sir u spoke about rural areas having internet...sir than they are no more rural...coming to connectivity.. Sir China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited,check it out..sir talking about the Estonian and the swiz govt adopting this method..sir first check their population.sir still I say the worlds largest democracy still does not follow this method. HAD A gud debate 😃 😉","On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates\" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as \"buying votes\" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.","Voting Should Be Compulsory \"Voting is an integral part of democracy, without this process we go back to oligarchy were only a few people decide; The idea of democracy is to avoid this. So how will mandatory voting help? Well first let us look at the statistics, in America's 2008 Presidential Election only 64% of the population voted, less than 2/3 of the population voted! If the other 36% had voted I'm sure there would have been a different turn out.\" This statement proves that more votes make more of a difference. You say that \"The less religion you have, the more \"Democratic\" of a society\", this is not correct. Democracy is decided upon the votes of the majority. If the \"majority\" is religous, then the vote of the religous (if all the same) will decide the poll. Democracy is not about the reason or background of the decisionmade by each individual, it is about which choice was voted by the majority of voters! So that quote is not a fact. This statement will also help you understand that more votes make more of a difference. It\"s not about the origin of the vote....that is not of interest. As long as there are more people voting there will definitely be a difference, for better or for worse. I will reference a sentence in your argument; \" there is no way of knowing if there would be any change \": OF COURSE THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING! No-one can tell the future! I am here to try and prove to you with facts and evidence that this would be the best way to go.","Technology to give all a vote \"I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate.\" Pro The technology is already present, its called the internet. Con will contend against the resolution on the grounds that not everyone should have a vote. Babies, mentally handicapped, and comatose patients should not get a vote. Next, a lot of the legal language is incredibly complex and even if the common folk could understand, many would opt not to understand and vote anyways. This is just Con's opening statements. Con will make a full argument next round. Note the resolution could be more clear.","Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11","on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process I believe that the Citizen's United versus Federal Election Commission ruling harms the election process. Furthermore, I believe that the Citizen's United ruling undermines democracy in the United States. Here are my contentions:Contention One: It can allow corporations to instill fear into American voters, andContention Two: It will allow corporations to give large amounts of politicians. In return, these corporations expect the politicians they give money to to pass laws and acts that don't bebefit the populace.I can't wait to read my opponent's case.","Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Vo... Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Voting rights are not made totally meaningless by voter ID laws. In most states, voters who lack identification can still cast provisional ballots that can be checked and counted later. The ID requirement is a mere inconvenience, not a complete barrier to voting. And again, the government’s interest in preventing voter fraud greatly outweighs the minor inconvenience suffered by a small group of voters.","on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process The media has been a majorinfluence on how people think, instilling fear and hatred into people’s minds.That is why I affirm the resolution that Citizen’s United v. Federal ElectionCommission harms the election process. I believe that this ruling harms theelection process because it gives corporations the power to influence peoplethrough the media. It also gives the power for corporations to donate money topoliticians to get certain laws passed. In this debate, I would like for you touphold the value of democracy, whichseems to be the appropriate value according to this debate. Contention One: This ruling allows corporations to influence voters bythe media. The media influences people tobelieve things that are either exaggerated or not true. For example, from American Politics written by Peter J.Woolley and Albert R. Papa, there are alarming statistics about how much themedia has influenced what people believe. One statistic provided is “On anational poll why they believe thecountry has a serious crime problem, 76% of people cited stories they had seenin the media.” But in fact we don’teven really have a serious crime problem. “But between the 1990 and 1998, when the nation’s murder rate declined by20%, the number of murder stories on network newscasts increased 600% (notincluding the OJ Simpson stories) !” As you can see, even when crime wasgoing down, the exposure of crime stories went up, and because of that peoplethought that there was a serious crime problem, based on what they saw. Now thereason why this is important is that Citizen’s United v. Federal ElectionCommission ruling allows corporations to create advertisements that degrade acandidate, and because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it. If theRepublicans went on TV, playing an advertisement once every 30 minutes sayingthat President Barack Obama is a bad person (which is 96 times a day!), theywill most likely believe it. That is why it undermines democracy, because itcan aid corporations in misleading people to believe things that aren’t true. Contention Two: This ruling allows corporations to donate money topoliticians. Now, the second reason why itundermines democracy is that it allows corporations to donate money to politiciansto pass laws that are either unjust or unwanted by the populace. For example,the Koch Brothers donated $76,000 to Rick Perry to deny social welfare and thehazards of pollution. And as of now, Texas, the state he governs, is the toppolluting state, polluting over 1.2 million pounds of toxic gas into our air.Rick Perry also denied a $2 billion check from President Barack Obama forhealthcare. That money could have in fact helped over 2 million people getaffordable healthcare. That money could have cut the amount of uninsured peoplein half. That money could have lowered Texas’s uninsured percentage from 23.7%to 5.8%. Where is the justice, when the average American citizen, when theaverage Texan, is asking for healthcare, but he or she can’t get that money topay for his medical bills when the governor says no only because of twobrothers? There is none! That is why it undermines democracy, because itremoves the American voice. Conclusion I close with this. One day I waswatching my favorite movie: The Great Debaters. I remember in one of hisdebates, Henry Lowe, one of the debaters, said a quote from a Roman General:“Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant. “This means they create desolation andcall it peace. That is what is happening right now. With this ruling, thegovernment is allowing corporations to muzzle the voices of everyday Americansso they can exercise democracy. But this is not democracy. This is fascism.Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “The liberty of a democracy isnot safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point itbecomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That in its essence isfascism.” Even President Barack Obama says that this ruling helps “Wall Streetbanks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshalltheir power to drown out the voice of everyday Americans.”","A Debate On The Electoral College Good Luck! My esteemed opponent has analyzed the electoral college and found it wanting. He believes it to be an inefficient formality. He offers two contentions to support his resolution: 1. \"The Electoral College [EC] makes votes unheard. \" 2. The EC gives some regions more representation than their population warrants, and others less. I will begin by correcting Con's analysis on what the EC is and what the EC is not. Then I will then refute his two contentions. Finally, I will offer a brief conclusion. (Note: I reserve the right to offer new arguments in round two) --------- Con believes that the main purpose of the modern EC is to echo the popular vote of its consituency. To a degree he is correct, this is a major function of the EC, but not the only one. The United States is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is a collection of sovereign states that give up certain aspects of their autonomy to form a larger 'union', or 'Federation'. [1] Therefore, when electing the Head of State for a Federal Republic there is more to consider than regional population. A state needs to be adequately represented in order to benefit from being a member-state of a Federation. The EC ensures that smaller, less populated states receive the same benefits as the larger ones. Without the EC smaller states such as Wyoming or West Virginia would receive even less federal consideration than they do under the current system. Politicians would have little reason to visit the mid-western states, and even less reason to give them the same benefits of union that larger states like New York and California enjoy. ------------ Claims: 1. The EC makes votes unheard (a,b,c). 2. The EC leads to overrepresentation and underreppresentation. Rebutals: 1. a) My young opponent claims that the voices of some citizens voting for the losing candidate go unheard (in cases where the winner of the popular vote loses the EC vote). I find a different interpretation to be more accurate. Their voices do not go unheard, rather the voice of the states Does get heard. b) This is not an argument in favor of reforming the EC. This is an argument in favor of conducting the federal census more often. We have the technology to make this more feasible today than we did when the census was instituted in the mid 1800s. c) Con is correct in his historical analysis. However, he offers no explanation as to why the election going into the House of Representatives is a bad thing that suggests that our election methods should be reformed. 2. . If someone were to look strictly at the popular vote then Con would be correct in this claim. However, as I have discussed above, there are more things to take into consideration. This nation was founded both on the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of separate states. The two branches of congress were created with the same principle as the EC. It apportions some of the representation based on population (House of Representatives) and the rest based on statehood (two votes for each state in the Senate). This gives smaller states like Wyoming the same representational proportion quoted by Con in Congress for the very same reason that the EC takes both measures into consideration - to ensure that the smaller states have some say in the Federal government. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that these states are given a base level of power to make their existence in the federation worthwhile than it would be to say that its citizens exercise more 'power' than others. ------------- CONCLUSION The United States of America was founded with two things in mind: the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the separate states. These principles are reflected in the apportionment of Congress and the apportionment of the Electoral College. Both of these institutions ensure that the more populace regions like the Northeast and the West Coast do not dominate the less populace ones. A base level of power is necessary in order for all states to enjoy the benefits of union. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...","Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.","On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO. Thank you for the kind words and for the amazing debate. This was a great discourse and I hope we can get some good votes. Since there isn't any structure to round 5, I will simply use this round to summarize the main points and give one final appeal to the voters. We both agree that there are improvements to be made, however, this debate is about the current voting standards and their impact on debate. org. To properly analyze the, we must look at how debate. org was before the standards and where we stand today. As I have shown in the example of Contradiction vs. WriterDave, prior to the vote standards, there were far less quality votes and less quality feedbacks. Moreover, vote bombs were a huge problem and they had to be countered. This resulted in votes being wasted by having to be countered time and time again. Thankfully, the new standards resulted in a clear understanding of what was expected by the voters and we now have a way to remove bad votes without having to waste good ones. Although vote moderation may cause a lack of votes, they have certainly improved their quality of votes. Even though mods make mistakes, they aren't out to \"get you\" and aren't out to make debate. org less enjoyable. They are simply there to ensure that the votes meet the proper standards. Our moderators work very hard to ensure that debate. org is a fun and enjoyable place. They are willing to work with the community to improve the members to improve their voting and debating. They are often quick to acknowledge their mistakes and don't hold their mistakes against that person. For these reasons, debate. org is a better site because of the current vote standards. Restating the Cost/Benefit analysisPotential Costs-Less votes-Possible mistakes by moderatorsPotential benefits-Higher quality votes-Higher quality debates-Higher quality membersThe resolution is negated because debate. org I have shown that debate. org is a better site because of the standards in place.","Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote I thank Con for competing with me in this debate.1) The Electoral College increases \"Deliberative Democracy\": This point barely even correlates to anything How does the fact that it's controversial immediately lead to becoming more informed? Deliberative Democracy means that the people weigh their options in deliberation before they make a majority vote. Whether the Electoral College system is there or not, the voters' decisions are going to be deliberate. They are going to weigh their options based on the candidates credibility etc. The Electoral College has nothing to do with deliberative democracy. However, if a National Vote is placed, Deliberative Democracy would increase and citizens would become more informed because they have more of an incentive to vote. \"Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as 'a subject terrific for political analysis's is truly a gift that keeps on giving.' He furthers that 'the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching.' This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including 'clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens.\" -Con How is this evidence? These are a bunch of claims that do not even correlate. The fact that the Electoral College is good for political analyzation, doesn't necessarily mean that it would immediately make voters try to be more informed because of it's complexity in the system. \"Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule.\" http://en.wikipedia.org...; 2) I already stated that majority and minority fraud could be controlled by other methods other than the Electoral College. Con clearly ignored that statement Sub Point C) It's not a straw man. I clearly stated a fact which is that it is less likely that there would be extremely close scores since there would be large pools of data. A straw man would mean that I misunderstood his statement and attacked it from my misunderstanding. CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University\"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote \"if the popular vote should be close\"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in\"all states where any ballots could be contested.\" Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it \"isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required.\" Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. First of all, Con stated that close election recounts in a National Vote, would cause dangerous delays Am I right? Because if I am, than I do not think it is faulty to say that under a direct vote, you wouldn't have to worry too much about dangerous delays because close elections would be much less likely because of large pools of data. 3) That was barely evidence. It's just logical to assume that if most people vote for a certain president (and most people live in cities) than I would conclude that most people in America want that President Now I will conclude this with a statement: The Electoral College was original established because the writers of the Constitution did not want the people to have too much power because they felt that the majority was uneducated. Which they were. But people nowadays are much more informed and have much easier access to information. So I would think that it is fair to conclude that the people should have more power in deciding their Presidents. I also believe that people claiming that the Electoral College is necessary because it \"represents all of the country\" are wrong because the Electoral College forces Candidates to focus on a small number of states that are \"politically centered\" and practically speculated to be representative of the US's wishes. Why base votes on speculation when you could base them on actual evidence, such as a fair majority vote? It's just common sense that a vote would be more fair if the people who live in a country get to decide who runs their country.It's just common sense that a majority vote would be an accurate vote.It's just common sense that the Electoral College is outdated. If people are going to have a President representing their country, than they better be the ones to decide who becomes the President to their country! The People should ruleNot the Elite","for democracy Even though you are con in this debate, judging by your 1st round argument, I would assume that you are for democracy and I am against democracy. Democracy is a very popular form of government throughout the course of history yet it is not always the most effective form of government. There are many problems face by the democratic system and I will first be pointing those problems out in my first round of the debate. First of all, the action of voting and acquiring the results of the voting is a very time consuming and inefficient process, the government often spend a long time simply trying to collect the votes and that often leads to a loss of important time when it comes to decision making. A well-known example would be United States presidential election in 2000 between Bush and Gore, where weeks were taking acquiring and analysing the votes simply to determine who won the election. Secondly, corruption is often a large problem in democratic systems. In countries with a large population, tallying and acquiring votes become more difficult and time consuming, and leads to an increase in the chance of voter fraud. A very recent example would be a case in Sandoval County, New Mexico, where a man name Eugene Victor first voted under his own name, and then waited until the next day to vote again under his son\"s name without his son's permission. He would have gotten away with this if he didn't turn himself in afterwards, and this shows how easy it is for voting frauds to occur in a democratic system and ultimately leading to biased votes that could cause a lot problems. Thirdly, the voting public is often not aware of the full context of the voting/election and that could lead to the voters being easily influenced to cast a certain vote. Not just so, the increase in today's level of media saturation also causes the voters to face more influences around them that once again would lead to vote for a particular party under heavy influence instead of under their own will. Further points will be stated in my second round argument, Thank you.","This House would introduce compulsory voting P1: It is never fine for repressive parties to come into power. It doesn't matter if they were elected democratically. When I say apathetic government, I mean governments that take away rights. They don't care about the people and their rights. P2: I never advocated for anarchy. This rebuttal is out of nowhere and irrelevant. C1: What is society? Why must it be more important than individuals. Society is just a group of individuals, so sacrificing the individual to 'society' is just sacrificing individuals to other individuals. Everybody is repressed, not helped. C2: And what if the majority don't want universal suffrage? The reason that blacks and women could not vote for a long time was because the majority \" white men \" was better off without their vote. Prisoners are also not the only group that is prevented from voting in certain parts of the world. Young people and non-citizens come to mind as well. C3: The merits of democracy are not irrelevant. My opponent's whole argument rests on the idea that compulsory voting is more democratic. Thus, if that reason is illegitimate, it must be used as a point of argument. And the only evidence provided against it was the idea that democracy is better because it is more democratic. A system where people do not agree with oppressive rulers is better, because that is when they rebel, and sometimes even put in something better. If the majority always supported their rulers, America would still be a British colony. France would still be a monarchy. Mubarak and Gaddafi would still be in power. P1: I don't necessarily mean that politicians lie, but they do focus on non-issues to sway the public. Examples include Barack Obama's birth certificate and Mitt Romney's tax returns. Both were non-issues that swayed public opinion. My opponent's only argument against compartmentalizing voters was that it was undemocratic. I don't even know how that relates. It isn't an argument, it is using a meaningless word to criticize something. Rather than rebutting my source, my opponent chose to throw an ad hominem at it. Considering that she figured out objective morality, I would definitely say that Rand is a moral authority. There is no such thing as a reasonable denial of liberty, or any right for that matter. That is why they are rights.","This house would abolish the Electoral College Re: CostIn my opinion, this is by far con's best argument. Although amending the Constitution is indeed a timely procedure, I would argue that anything that will substantially improve U.S. democracy and give the people a greater say in the government is worth the time and cost. In 2013, a Gallup poll reported that over 60% of Americans favor abolishing the EC (1). What would it take to get Congress to pass an amendment to abolish the EC? Perhaps a loss in the Presidential election if their candidate got more votes, but lost in the EC. The last time this happened was in 2000 and, as I cited in the first round, this has happened a total of 4 times. Another possible way this could happen is if we see a 269-269 tie. In almost every election, there was a very real possibility of a 269-269 tie. In the current 2016 election, there are at least three ways in which the EC could end up as a tie (2). Because of the way the EC is set up, the Democrats have a signifigant advantage in the EC (3). If the Republicans suffer a loss in the EC, as the Democrats did in 2000, we could very easily see a bipartisan call to repeal the EC. Re: FederalismCon argues that the EC maintains Federalism. The problem with this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of Federalism. The EC does not maintain or enhance the power or soverinty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress, not on the EC. Federalism can be maintained with or without the EC.Con also argues that abolishing the EC would be detrimental to the interest of small states. Ironically, bigger states already have a slight advantage in the EC as opposed to small states because candidates focus on the states that give the biggest payoff. Consequently, they ignore states such as Alaska and Wyoming that have such small popuations (4). But the bigger issue is with the one-person-one-vote principle. Although the EC may be more or less favorable to big states, a vote in smaller states is worth far more (see my arguments in round 2). Is it really fair that a vote in a small state is worth far more than one with a bigger population?Re: RisksIn my opinion, this is con's weakest argument. Cons argument is essentially an argumentum ad antiquitatem - appeal to tradition (5). Although the EC has been intact since the Constitution was ratified, it is time to move on from an archaic system. In the original Constitution, Senators were elected by the state legislator, not by a direct election. This changed with the ratification of the XVII amendment in 1913 (6). The old system no longer worked and increased corruption and deadlocked Congress. Likewise, the EC is outdated and should be changed. Thank you con for a good debate. I look forward to your reply! Sources1. http://bit.ly...;2. http://bit.ly...;3. http://wapo.st...;4. http://bit.ly...;5. http://bit.ly...;6. http://bit.ly...;","The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.","Abolish the Electoral College The Electoral College system of electing the President of the United States of America should be changed to a popular voting system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US system of voting to elect the President is done through the Electoral College. This is enumerated under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It was established in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention. During that time, it was impractical for Presidential candidates to travel trough the country campaigning. Votes were counted in each precinct; carried on horseback to the state capital, and then, each elector reported to the nation's capital to cast their vote. Furthermore, the President was elected indirectly. This was meant to prevent the general public from voting for someone they did not know. Each state is responsible for determining their voting procedure. At the time this was established, reasonable justification was present for that system. 221 years later, those justifications are not valid. Widespread media enables candidates to disseminate their message to the millions of voters with televisions, radios, computers, and other forms of media. The election process is computerized in many states, making the tallying and computation of the winner much quicker than it was in years past. Additionally, voting rights have been given to a much broader spectrum of voters, making equal representation a question of civil rights and freedoms. I contend that the Electoral College, in its current form in today's U.S. Federal Government, is unnecessary using the following points in this debate: 1.The Electoral College limits American citizen's access to Presidential candidate's media and attention, making their votes seem meaningless. 2.The Electoral College discourages voter turnout in non-swing states, thus affecting concurrent elections for other races. 3.Faithless electors can cause the non-representation of voters in the states they serve. 4.The electoral college undermines the intelligence and integrity of American voters by assuming they do not have the capability to make and informed, educated decision, and 5.The electoral college has failed to represent the popular vote of American citizens Determining the President by a popular voting method would give greater accountability to individual reporting districts, and equalize the power that swing states and large electoral vote states have over the Presidential election process.","The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote In the spirit of democracy, however, isn't the \"winner takes all system\" obsoleted? Doesn't it vilify the rights of minorities and favor the majority? But if the president campaigned in the big states, wouldn't the minorities of the small states migrate to the majority of the big states, therefore becoming the \"majority?\" So what? The constitution can be amended. Let's use Bush v. Gore 2000 as an example. Gore had 266 votes. Bush had 271. Without the inclusion of electorate votes, Gore would have won, and prevented the future collapse of the economy. Popular vote was won by Gore. Electoral Vote was won by Bush. Without the electoral college, Bush wouldn't have been elected; and, without the popular vote, Gore wouldn't of been elected. Therefore, the popular vote should not be vilified or considered inaccurate. Politicians vote on other politicians. State pretty much overrides what popularity dictates. Presidents are unfairly elected. So why do we consider ourselves a democracy if something like the Electoral College is permeated and not vilified?","Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Vote :D I thank CON for her quick response.CON asks \"Wouldn't you agree that having your voice heard through the senate would make your vote less chaotic and more balanced?\"1) Not necessarily... Senators don't always fully represent what you want, but rather what they believe you want. In the electoral college, its a winner-take-all system. This means that if you are a part of the minority in a state (ex. Democrat in a Republican state), your vote won't count towards anything, as all of the Electoral Votes goes to whoever wins in that state. Your voice wouldn't be heard.2) I fail to see how, in any way, would a vote be \"chaotic\" or \"unbalanced\". Your vote is your vote....There aren't many characteristics to a vote.Con says \"Don't you want balance between large and small states?\"1) Don't you want candidates to campaign in all states, instead of the few closely divided ones? A handful of closely divided battleground states get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates.She writes \"Wouldn't you want recounts confined to a few states and not the whole country?\" 1) Computerized voting systems are operational.2) With the newer, fully computerized voting systems, including optical scan and direct recording electronic systems, the vote totals may be transmitted automatically to the central counting facility.3) Recounts shouldn't stop are government from doing its job.Con says \"Where would the justification be in spending over 2 billion dollars per candidate just for campaigning?\"1) She presents no evidence for this \"2 billion\" figure.2) Spending limits exist to make sure rich candidates don't have an advantage over poorer candidates. http://www.fec.gov...If everyone has the same budget per state, everyone would be at the same disadvantage. Now if everyone was at the same 'disadvantage', it wouldn't truly be a 'disadvantage'. http://dictionary.reference.com... Con says \"Electoral vote provides organization, wouldn't you agree that order is needed for everything?\"1) She doesn't explain how the Electoral College provides any 'organization' or why it's true. 2) Sure, order is ideal, but wouldn't a popular vote system have 'order' too?Con says \"Electoral vote allows smaller states with a smaller population to have an equal pull to a larger state. Does popular vote allow this or any kind of balance?\"1) Through Electoral Vote, the minorities in any state won't have any voice in who becomes president. Why? Because no matter who they vote for, all of the electoral votes will still go to the majority's choice. This decreases and discourages voters.2) In popular vote, I don't see how any boundaries will be drawn between states. A democrat vote in a Republican state will have the exact same affect as a democrat vote in a Democrat state. All votes would be equal, and no one would be discouraged.3) Everyone will have the power or ability to decide an outcome through popular vote. One of the definitions of balance is the power or ability to decide an outcome by throwing one's strength, influence, support, or the like, to one side or the other. Needless to say, popular vote can allow the existence of 'balance'. http://dictionary.reference.com...==Questions== If constantly, the majority of America pushes for a popular vote system, why should the government continue to ignore them? Why should our voting system discriminate against candidates who have a broad-based support? Popular vote would encourage more voters, as everyone's vote will have the same affect and importance. Does the electoral college present the same benefit? Through the electoral college, the majority can actually be ignored. A candidate could lose popular vote, but yet be elected president through key states. Wouldn't a popular vote system better represent the interests of America? Candidates often only campaign in battleground states, where the support is still divided somewhat evenly. States that they are winning tremendously or losing too much will be ignored by candidates and forgotten. Why would this be fair and equal, or even justifiable? I await your response! :D","The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System I will admit that the Ranked-Choice system is not a perfect system, for no voting system can be flawless. However, I am arguing that it is still better than our current first-past-the-post system. It actually does not produce the spoiler effect because such an effect would be impossible under the ranked-choice system. When I use the term spoiler effect, I am referring to the splitting of the vote between two candidates of similar ideology, resulting in the candidate of the other ideology winning. This cannot happen with a Ranked-Choice system because the voters voting for each of the two candidates of similar ideology would just rank the other candidate of that ideology as their second choice. Hence, the spoiler effect is eliminated. It may be true that the ranked-choice system may lead to a two-party system, but it is not as hard for a third-party candidate to make an election bid under the ranked-choice system. I will now present another example of how the ranked-choice system would benefit us. In the months of april and march, Michael Bloomberg was considering mounting a presidential bid. However, he decided not to do so because he feared being a spoiler that would lead to the victory of Donald Trump. Bloomberg would have been able to run under a ranked-choice system without fear of the spoiler affect. Although the ranked-choice system is perfect, it is better than our current system and we would benefit from adopting it.","Resolved : The Electoral College should be Removed Thanks :) I hope I catch onto the style of debate.org, and good luck to you too The electoral college system of the United states does not need any change. ==My Arguments== 1. The population may not always have the best presidential candidate in mind. It is the job of the electoral college members to determine the best possible presidential candidate, and their absence would result in popular vote, a mass \"mob\", controlling our government. Even if the best suited President runs against popular opinion, the Electoral College is able to right this. ==My Responses== 1. My opponent contested that the Winner Take All system that is implemented in most states, the minority votes count towards the election of their opposition. However, this system is for the best interests of the American people. As Thomas Jefferson put it, in his reasoning for the Electoral College - \"Republicanism is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10. Jefferson maintained that, '[a] democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.'\"[1] Additionally, the system of the Electoral college is more fair to smaller states than a popular vote would be. Just because farmers, for instance, make up a small percent of U.S. population, (but their authority is found in the Senate, where states all have 2 votes), does not mean that they have to be punished. The electoral college balances the U.S. population and equal state representation issue, and solves a problem that would present itself in the event of a popular vote 2. My opponent contested the establishment of third parties. My response- Are third parties *bad*? They present a new view point for the American public. They are merely exercising their right to speech and run for office. For these reasons, I support Neg. Source 1. http://en.wiki...","On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process Thanks for debating with me and I hope we have a great debate! We would like to start with a proper framework for today\"s debate First, some Definitions Election Process- Includes voting, free speech, campaigning Harm- We would like to define undermine subvert the base or foundation of insidiously (oxford+merriam) (ADD IF----the NY Times and commoncause.org defines the Citizens United vs (FEC) as The Supreme Court\"s decision permits corporations, unions and other special interests to spend as much as they like to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates.) Obsv 1- Time sensitivity- Harm refers to any harms now, or any harms that are imminent. My opponents have to show you, Judge, any harm of great magnitude to the election process that is current or imminent, and we have to show you how without this decision does not harm the election process, and might even help it. Contention 1- Corporate Contributions Increase Voter Turnout Corporate contributions create ads and messages causing an increase in the number of voters, increasing participation in democracy. A 2010 Common Dreams article expresses that since corporations are free to spend funds on political ads, they spend an infinite amount of money on political ads. This obviously increases the number of political ads in the united states. Actually according to a wnyc article published in May 2012 , 70% of political ads were negative in the 2012 election. This all might seem bad, however, A Illinois Wesleyan University study found that increased voter turnout is due to negative television advertisements and that positive advertisements have no significant effect on turnout. By fostering an emotional response in voters, negative or attack advertisements and messages increase voter turnout. An NYC magazine study showed that negative ad-filled campaigns throughout history have been largely successful: In the Massachusetts senate races, Ted Kennedy volleyed Mitt Romney with negative ads, resulting in Kennedy\"s victory by 17%. George W. Bush used this same technique against John Kerry in 2004, and he won by a 6.5% margin. The impact is clear- Voter turnout is better for the democratic processes because the people\"s voices will be heard. With corporations funding campaigns and producing ads, there is an increased voter turnout, and therefore the democratic process is not harmed. Contention 2-Corporations are beneficial to society, thus they should have the rights of citizens Corporations have the rights of free speech protected under the first Amendment, just like a person. Huffington Post states that Corporations are the foundation of wealth creation, innovation, jobs, markets and the economy in our society. If they spend unlimited money to a certain candidate, the companies could save money, leading to more jobs. Corporations are run by people, help create jobs, and are consisted of people. Obviously, the corporations should be considered as a person. A Gallup Poll showed that Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech. The impact- is that since companies consist of people and help the people, when companies get it their way, the benefits carry on to the citizens. Thus if a company funds a candidate that gives them tax breaks, the company saving money can directly impact to the workers at the company getting higher salaries. Thus when people have reliable jobs, they have more time to stay informed on election news, thus leading to a more informed populous, hereby improving the election process. Contention 3- Super PACs are creating Competition Super PACs, which take the money from corporations and donate them to candidates, are actually creating competition between the political candidates bettering democracy and voter turnout. A February 2012 Slate Magazine article gave us is the Republican Primaries and how without Super PACs, Mitt Romney would win by a huge margin. But since there are Super PACs, there is a more competitive race for the fight for president, and this keeps other alternative candidates in the election too. Because of this, there are more choices in the election, and thus, with more candidates to fit these voter\"s ideologies, there is more voter turnout. Another study conducted by the CATO organization was published in 2002 which showed that without PACs, the Mccain-Feingold Act would apply and most donations would go to the incumbents instead of the challenger. With the PACs, the current law made by the Citizen\"s United decision would apply and money would go to both candidates. This makes the election fair and competitive. The impact is clear- With the more competitive environment, elections are tighter causing more voter turnout. However, if elections are not competitive, voters will not want to vote, as they already know who will win. This will lower participation in democracy resulting in harming the election process.","The Internet is more useful than frustrating I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply \"vote\", which means, according to Merriam Webster, \"the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc.\" 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.","Automatic Voter Registration Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact. We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments. My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.","\"should voting be done online\" Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don","The cell phone verification system on this site is useless While I understand the need to ensure that voting spam does not occur, requiring a verification via cell phone text is ridiculous. Some people do not have cell phones, or cell phones with texting capabilities, or simply do not wish to give out their phone number online. Rather than requiring cell phone verification in order to vote, it should be that once you've verified your account via e-mail and completed three debates, you automatically gain the right to vote on debates, instead of having to e-mail support in order to be verified. This would lessen the amount of work support has to do as well.","In a Democracy, Voting ought to be Compulsory. (LD Debate) Plato, the man who was considered the most influential philosopher of all times, once stated, “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” It is because I agree that voting is so essential to establishing effective government that I support the resolution, Resolved: In a democracy voting ought to be compulsory.Before I proceed to my arguments I’d like to define a couple of words in the resolution. According to Oxford Dictionaries, Democracy means a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Voting is to register a vote. Finally, Compulsory means to be required by the law. Therefore, the resolution clearly holds that I successfully argue for mandatory voting in democracies. In this debate, if I am able to convince you that democracies should adopt this guideline, you should vote for the affirmative. My VALUE, or weighing mechanism of this round, is PROGRESS. This means that mandatory voting would improve America’s democracy and its voting issues. Contention 1: Successful Mandatory Voting in Other CountriesAccording to THE NEWS (February 4, 2013), currently, 31 countries have compulsory voting, and yet, in countries like Australia, they didn’t have any revolts or serious problems with mandatory voting. In fact, voter participation has increased remarkably, along with the general awareness of the Australian citizenry. On the other hand, the turnout rates of voting in the U.S. are rapidly decreasing, and the only way to increase the amount of votes is to implement compulsory voting. According to Keith Olbermann from Salon Articles (November 5, 2002), 50% of voter participation doesn’t make a democracy; mandatory voting is essential in the United States. If half of the citizens refused to vote, America wouldn’t be a democracy at all- it would just be a really large oligarchy. Contention 2: Compulsory Voting Improves DemocracyAccording to Arend Lijphart, research professor of Political Science at University of California, low turnout is a serious threat to democracy because it distorts political influence, harms less “well-off” citizens, and destroys local governance. Compulsory voting is the best solution to overcome these problems. Yes, there are several other solutions such as infrequent elections, but compulsory voting, itself, can maximize turnout. Its advantages far outweigh the normative and practical objections to it.Also, compulsory voting is the only way to ensure that every voice, even those who are least the least privileged, are heard and acknowledged in shaping political outcomes. The research assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research, ACTA POLITICA (2007), Bart Engelen explained that low turnout provides a reason for worrying, and compulsory voting is the utmost solution. “Understanding turnout as a measure of political participation, I have argued that low turnout provides a reason for worrying. Because compulsory voting raises turnout considerably, it is able to enhance the democratic values of political participation, representativeness and equality. The notion of democracy implied in this view is well-founded in the practices and theories of democracy: ‘democracy is universally understood as a form of government involving ‘rule by the people’, which has essentially been its meaning since the term and practice were introduced’ (Dahl, 2001, 3405). In this respect, I have argued that compulsory voting sends a powerful signal to the people that each and every vote matters and thus motivates citizens to participate in the democratic system, thereby ensuring that the concerns of every citizen, including the least well-off, are heeded at the political level.” Contention 3: Mandatory Voting Works and Helps to Improve the Government.The most decisive way for preventing turnout decline is compulsory voting: in fact, it is the only way that can cause turnout to rise anywhere near 95%. Research (from New York Times, November 7, 2011) shows that countries with mandatory voting also have less wealth inequality, less possibility of political corruption, and higher levels of satisfaction with the way democracy is working. Lisa Hill, a professor of politics at the University of Adelaide, Australia, said, “ Here in Australia, where we love freedom as much as anyone else, we have a mandatory voting regime that is well managed, corruption-free, easy to access, cheap to run and has an approval rating of more than 70 percent.”Judge(s), let me ask you: is voting just a right or is it also a duty? Democratic citizens owe it to each other to vote so that, together, they can constitute democracy and collectively enjoy the benefits of living in properly functioning democratic society where everyone counts.Thank You.","Debate.org should reform its voting criteria The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity. .. it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2.","Police could influence their votes This could happen at any given polling station but it doesn't. These measures are being introduced as the European Court of Human Rights considers a blanket ban on voting for prisoners as a breach of human rights. It is likely therefore that the Government will introduce many procedural safeguards to ensure that the voting rights are exercised in a similar fashion to the ones outside of prison. Only then will they be fully meeting the expectations of the Human Rights Court which they do not wish to contravene.","The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System One of the main reasons, among a few others, that drive people to not vote, is they don't like either of the two main candidates. Over the last two decades, politics in the U.S. have become more and more polarized, with the Democratic and Republican parties shifting more and more to the left and right, respectively. This results in a large percentage of the populace not voting because neither candidate appeals to them. This is the direct result of the traditional voting system. This video explains very well how a first-past-the-post voting method brings about a two-party system: ;(Watch from 1:40 to 3:50)The result of this system is that many voters are frusterated with both parties, and hence are much less likely to vote. The ranked-choice voting system, however, is different. It brings in more voters, because voters can vote for their favorite candidate without the fear of their disliked candidate winning because of the spoiler effect. Consider the same scenario explained in the video. After the first election, snake's voters and turtle's voters would not have to worry about the spoiler effect under the ranked-choice system. Snake's voters and turtle's voters would simply mark their least preferred candidate as such, to ensure that their votes will be transferred as they would want. This makes people much more likely to vote, because they would be able to vote without fear for a candidate that appeals to them. Con's argues that we should solve this issue of no voters first; however, the ranked-choice system is the solution.","Voter photo id laws. I'll start with an overview of the case and conclude with rebuttals. I'll show exactly why, if my sources are correct (and they are), Wylted cannot win this debate.== Overview ==Wylted has dropped almost every piece of evidence I offered. He briefly contested the News 21 study in Round 2, but dropped it in Round 3, as well as dropping the rest of my sources throughout (note: Wylted mentions [1], [5], and [6] but doesn't argue them). At this point, my uncontested evidence must be taken as true; Wylted cannot argue the evidence anymore because I won't be able to rebut what he says. This dooms Wylted's entire case.Suppression. The argument here is simple: photo ID laws impose a severe burden on voting by increasing the cost of voting. For low-income individuals, this cost is up to $175. [8] The impact: when the cost of voting increases, voter turnout decreases. Wylted drops this argument in its entirety. I supported this argument with multiple studies, including the unbiased GAO report discussed in Round 3. [7] Wylted also drops my \"voting is a low reward activity\" argument (see Round 2 and 3 for elaboration). The impact: even a small cost depresses voter turnout. These arguments -- especially when taken together -- weigh heavily against photo ID laws.NOTE: Wylted abandons his \"provisional ballots,\" \"reasonable accommodations,\" and \"absenteee ballots\" argument (i.e. he drops my rebuttal in Round 3), so those arguments carry no impact.Fraud. There is virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud. I cited multiple studies which show that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare (e.g. the News 21 study says 0.5% of voter fraud is in-person voter fraud). Wylted also drops key arguments here. First, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is the \"most likely type of fraud to be discovered\" (this point is discussed in the EAC report). [16] Second, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is an inefficient and irrational way to influence an election (i.e. it's costly, difficult to coordinate, the easiest type of fraud to detect, and imposes heavy punishments). Finally, Wylted drops my argument on public perceptions of voting fraud (see section on Voting Integrity from Round 3). I discuss Wylted's \"fraud is hard to detect\" argument below.== Rebuttal == (1) Wylted wrote: \"The study linked to does indeed show that number. What my opponent fails to show is how many of those 21 million people can still easily vote, with their military ID, government or employer ID, school ID, certificate of live birth, passports and several other methods that escape me at the moment.\"Wylted's statement is utter nonsense. The study says: \"11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification.” [1] The term \"government-issued photo identification\" includes all forms of ID relevant to this debate. The debate isn't about whether to require an identification document (e.g. a birth certificate). The debate is about whether to require a \"government-issued photo ID.\" The study speaks directly to that issue. Wylted's attempt to discredit the study's impact simply has no bearing or relevance to this debate.(2) Wylted quotes this from [5]: \"Voter identification requirements alone do not determine turnout. Multivariate models that take into account other predictors of voting can paint a more complete picture between voter identification requirents and turnout\" (emphasis mine).The first sentence in this statement says photo ID laws affect voter turnout. Of course, other factors also affect voter turnout. So what? The study concludes: \"The results presented here provide evidence that as voter identification requirements vary, voter turnout does as well....The overall effect for all registered voters was...statistically significant....It appears that stringent requirements can reduce turnout.\"(3) Wylted quotes this -- \"[t]he district court found that the law placed no significant burden on the right to vote\" -- from [6] and then claims \"[e]ven my opponent's citations, support my position.\"Wylted's quote mining. The article states: \"This Essay surveys the voter ID controversy and describes original empirical research finding ID laws to have a negative impact on voter turnout.\" Yes, the study notes that some courts have upheld photo ID laws, but the entire study was about those courts being wrong. The mere fact that the study \"surveys the voter ID controversy\" doesn't mean the study agrees with the courts that have upheld the laws. Contrary to Wylted's claim, the \"citation\" clearly found that photo ID laws depress voter turnout.(4) Wylted wrote: \"I don't know where my opponent is getting his stats, but my ID cost me $20. In Indiana where they have voter ID laws, they made state issued ID's free for those who couldn't afford them.\"First, I'm not sure how Wylted doesn't know where the stats come from, since I've meticulously cited them throughout the debate. The stats come from the GAO report and from a study published by the Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School. [7] [8] I cited both in Round 2 and discussed them again in Round 3. Second, $20 is a severe burden for some low-income voters, and it's certainly enough of a burden to influence turnout, because of the perception that voting is a low-reward activity (i.e. even a small cost lowers turnout). Third, just because a state-issued ID is free doesn't mean obtaining the ID is free. Voters must still pay for underlying documentation (e.g. birth certificates), travel and transportation costs, and waiting time (often having to take off work). I explained this in Round 2, but Wylted ignored that argument (i.e. pretends I never made it).(5) Relying on \"Occam's Razor,\" Wylted says in-person voter fraud happens frequently because voter fraud is hard to detect.Occam's razor is the idea that \"among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.\" Wylted's argument -- or rather, narrative -- requires more assumptions than mine, so under occam's razor, prefer mine. Wylted's argument rests on at least 4 or 5 assumptions. Wylted names some of them in his argument: (1) the idea that politicians will do anything they can get away with; (2) the idea that in-person voter fraud is harder to detect than other types of fraud (which is wrong as noted in [16]); (3) the idea that in-person voter fraud is economically feasible (it's not); (4) lack of evidence is irrelevant (also false). The number of assumptions underlying Wylted's position make occam's razor inapplicable. The argument I make rests on a single assumption: If there's no evidence of something, it's probably rare. If anything, occam's razor applies to my position, not Wylted's. The problems with Wylted's argument don't stop there. First, in-person voter fraud is the easiest type of voter fraud to detect. I made this argument in Round 2 and 3, and Wylted ignores it entirely. Wylted cannot argue this point now because I'd have no chance to rebut it. There's simply no reason politicians would use in-person voter fraud when other types of fraud are much harder to detect. Again, under occam's razor, politicians are going to choose the cheapest, least difficult to orchestrate, and hardest type of voter fraud to detect. I explained earlier that in-person voter fraud is not the cheapest, it's inefficient, it's difficult to coordinate and bribe thousands of voters, and it's the easiest to detect. Occam's razor suggests that in-person voter fraud simply isn't how politicians would go about influencing an election. This is especially so because of the heavy punishments that attach to in-person voter fraud. Second, in-person voter fraud requires a massive campaight by politicians. Wylted says politicians will engage in in-person voter fraud because it's difficult to detet, but that ignores the practical difficulty of orchestrating a massive campaign. The reason a massive campaign is necessary is because you can't influence an election with one vote. Politicians need to coordinate and bribe thousands upon thousands of voters. Occam's razor suggests that politicians won't go through that trouble, not only because of the complexity, but also because of the economics (it's simply too expensive). Think about how much each person would charge to break the law and face the risks of detected. Consider the risks: if even a single one of these thousands of people is caught, the entire scheme falls apart. The logistiscs are simly so complex and impractical, not to mention how inefficient in-person voter fraud is at influencing an election.I offered a study on these very points in Round 2 and 3 -- the EAC report -- which talks about all these practical difficulties with in-person voter fraud. The study makes the opposite argument that Wylted's making: It's simply so complex, impractical, inefficient, and expensive that politicians are going to choose other forms of voter fraud to influence an election. I also cited a study on public perceptions of voting fraud, which suggests that in-person voter fraud simply doesn't happen, for reasons relatating to public perceptions of it.Third, there's an easy solution to the kind of in-person voter fraud (using dead people's names) that Wylted talks about: update the voter rolls. That solution won't suppress voters. Wylted's given no reason why we can't do that instead of photo ID laws.== Conclusion ==Wylted cannot in this debate with the arguments he's made. He's dropped almost all my evidence. He's banked his entire case on the idea that in-person voter fraud is hard to detect so therefore it's happening frequently. But as I've shown, there's a number of other reasons why in-person voter fraud doesn't happen (e.g. practical issues orchestrating it). I've also shown that photo ID laws suppress a significant number of votes. The net effect of these laws is to suppress voters.","The electoral college stands in the way of election reform Alternative election methods such as Approval voting, Condorcet voting, and even Instant Runoff Voting cannot be properly implemented at the Presidential level if the Electoral College remains in place. This is unfortunate, given that these methods are a marked improvement on the current systems.","A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.","voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages The increase in the cost of voting ballots, would not be an issue, if those wishing to vote in their native language, were only allowed to do so on electronic ballot machines. A simple reprogram is all that would be needed. You said \"We cant afford to give out ballots to someone that cant vote properly\" In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson, had the Voting Rights Act passed. This act allowed all american citizens the right to vote, ignoring any discrimination. To quote Lyndon B. Johnson, \"Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.\" This act already covers language disabilities, and there fore it is the government and states duty to provide voting supplies not based on any discrimination. If you deny the right to vote based on language you are discriminating against those that do not speak english. By doing this, you are simply creating another example of the 1960's, when African Americans were not allowed to vote. America does not need this kind of negative attention, when we are already getting enough from the war in Iraq.","Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic Other CountriesThe fact that Australia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, and other countries have a compulsory voting system doesn't mean that they have \"flourishing democracies\". It just means that their system of voting is different. Pro has failed back up the claim that their democracies are flourishing and has not provided evidence for how compulsory voting has made these countries better. All Pro has done here is state an opinion and has used a statement as evidence of itself to make an argument, which is a logical fallacy.Unrepresentative GovernmentsActually, governments are represented worse when people who do not wish to participate are forced to choose a side, because then those voters are not sure how they want government to be. They have no option to remain neutral but to cast a vote one way or the other, which inaccurately reflects how they really feel about how government ought to be (which is that others should decide who know better about both sides of the matter at hand). As I mentioned before, coerced voting tempts uneducated people to vote for a random candidate or cause, which is harmful to everyone in the ring.Interests of votersLet us consider the following scenario: At a voting booth for an election, an uneducated voter says to himself, \"I know nothing about candidate A or candidate B, nor do I care about the outcome of the election, but since I am required to vote by law I will flip a coin to decide who I shall vote for.\" He flips a coin and decides to vote for candidate A. Meanwhile, an educated voter who has studied the candidates and their intentions closely and has been taking both runners into much consideration has decided to vote for candidate B and strongly believes candidate B will do a better job in office. However, the educated person's vote is canceled out by the ignorant man's random ballot, thus affecting the outcome of the election and potentially putting a worse candidate is put in office.When the 45% less educated population is forced to vote, it leads to worse representation of the people's choice of law or candidate, and in effect becomes a violation of true democracy.","Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting Thanks to tylergraham95! In this round, I will address framework, the Pro case, the Pro Con, and provide some reasons to vote Pro. FRAMEWORKSimply because VV is the status quo does not make it inherently desirable; yet, my example of slavery goes un-rebutted. By extending my argument, we can see that we cannot blindly accept VV as inherently desirable. Con is \"begging the question. \" Voting is desirable in a democracy, but what type of voting is most desirable is up for debate. Con must prove the desirability of his voluntary system just as much as I must prove the desirability of my compulsory system. PROs CASESub-point A: CV boosts TurnoutCon does not deny that CV boosts turnout. His only argument here is that boosting turnout decrease voting quality--I will address this assertion later in this round--but for now, Con DROPS that CV will increase turnout, and we can extend this point. Sub-point B: Low Turnout BadI made three assertions here: (1) that high turnout was \"one legitimating factor\" of a government, particularly as it regards the need for a mandate; (2) low turnout harms the socio-economically disadvantaged; (3) there should be a \"minimization of elite power. \"Con also makes three arguments: (1) that forcing everyone to votes pollute the polls with low quality votes; (2) that turnout alone does not boost credibility; and (3) that having people vote who want to vote legitimizes government more so than compulsion does. First of all, none of Con's points address my 2nd and 3rd arguments--they're DROPPED. Extend that low turnout harms the disadvantaged and that elite power should be reduced. These two points on their own are enough to show that low turnout is bad, even if you don't believe that compulsion is necessary for legitimacy. Now, let's take a look at Con's three claims. Firstly, Con repeats his \"quality of votes\" assertion, which I will address later. But, I will make one point here of importance. Italy does not enforce its CV laws. [1] Therefore, Silvio Berlusconi was elected VOLUNTARILY. Con makes a huge deal about how uneducated voters pollute the polls; yet we can turn his own example against him and say that this SAME phenomenon occurs in a voluntary system. I made this same argument in my last speech when I pointed out that this was a non-unique claim. Secondly, I stated that \"high turnout is one legitimating factor,\" which is not the same as saying that \"numbers ALONE do not add credibility. \" Never did I claim that high turnout was the ONLY metric, but it is nonetheless an important one, for legitimacy. Thirdly, if only a small group of people vote, they are the ones molding the government and the ones elected officials will focus on. Politicians wanted to get reelected, and so will make policies favorable to those who are likely to vote, and this means that leaders will pay less attention to other groups. This only entrenches socio-economic disparities and leads to elitism. When only a handful of people control the government it seems more oligarchic than democratic. So, low turnout is also bad for legitimacy too. Sub-point C: Free RidersCon's big claim here is that nonvoting is not free riding because people can still contribute without voting. Thus, nonvoters are not exploiting the system. This is wrong largely because of Con's interpretation of the social good that nonvoters are exploiting. The actual people who make up the government is the social good--not the community at large. Nonvoters may contribute to the community, they may protest against bad legislation, they may do community service, and so on, but they don't actually participate in electing the members of the government. Con argues, throughout this debate, that we want good, competent leaders. If good, competent, non-demagogic leaders are a social good, then when 10 of us vote for them, but some else doesn't vote, that person is enjoying that social good, i. e. those leaders, without having done the act of electing them; they are free-riding. Extend my argument. Sub-point D: PolarizationI argued that people who are more likely to vote tend to be more extreme (extremes have higher enthusiasm, loyalty to a cause, etc. ). The corollary is that moderates tend to vote less. Therefore, by instituting CV, we force moderates to vote, checking against polarization. Con DROPS this argument that nonvoters tend to be moderates. Extend it. Con's only attack here is his \"quality of votes\" point, which I will address later. Con also asserts that nonvoters do not comprise the majority in the U. S. However, there are many other democracies in which nonvoters aren't just the majority, but the vast majority. Even in the U. S. , non-presidential elections tend to hover around 40% turnout (60% don't vote), and even in 2012, around 43% of registered voters did not participate. [2] That is still a MASSIVE margin. Sub-point E: CV reduces violenceI am asserted that when voting norms atrophy the system is seen as being controlled by elites, and that the leaders cater to that group. This leads people to seeing the system as corrupt, and to use violence to express themselves. for example, the miners in South Africa who felt that they weren't being heard, the protests in Afghanistan when Karzai was reelected, the violence in Nigeria when Goodluck Jonathan was reelected, etc. . It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it's actually happened. Groups that lose at the polls and who simultaneously see the system as skewed or corrupt often resort to violence. When the GOP lost to Obama, there wasn't nationwide violence because the average Romney voter had a higher level of confidence in the physical polling system itself than people elsewhere. CV, inasmuch as it promotes good voting norms and reduces elite influence, does reduce violence. CON's CASEPoint 1: Right to Inaction(1) Con DROPS this argument that not all positive rights imply negative rights. We have the right to educate our kids, but we don't have the right not to educate our kids. Extend this point. (2) Con misinterprets my use of the jury example. I was arguing that some rights that take precedence over others. So, my right to due process is more important than your right to your free time; therefore, I can compel you to serve on the jury. Apply this to voting. My right to a representative government trumps your alleged right to not vote; thus I can compel voting. As Con misconstrues my point, we can extend it. The impact is that if I can show the CV benefits democracy, than your right to not vote is not enough to stop me from compelling you to do so. As my sources said, \"If there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. \" [3](3) Con DROPS my point that CV is not a violation of human rights. Extend it. (4) Con DROPS my arguments against his religious objections. He loses this. Point Two: Uneducated Voters(1) This is non-unique. As Con's own example of Italy shows, even with VV twits can be elected. So again, unless Con is willing to ban every single uneducated person from voting he cannot claim that I am the only person who might include uneducated voters in the system. And, if Con did ban those people, he would be infringing on freedom, which he says is a bad thing to do. (2) Con states, \"the idea that. .. CV translates into a politically engaged electorate is nonsensical. \" Con says that I have no warrants, yet this quote has no warrants. Saying that something's nonsensical is not SHOWING that it is nonsensical. Con's second source offers no citation for the numbers it gives, nor does it provide any methodology by which it attained those numbers. This source is questionable too. Furthermore, Con only addresses my point A argument, that people will educate themselves. He never addressed my point B that parties will educate voters. It's DROPPED, extend it. Point 3: QualityCross-apply my point B re: educating voters here. (1) Con agrees that only 1-2% of voters cast bad votes. Half of these, my source notes, will be spoiled or invalidated by their authors, so they won't be counted. So few donkey votes are counted then, that with an increase in voting of between 15-30 points on average, the effect of bad votes is negligible. They are \"incapable of distorting outcomes. \" And, regardless of how many actually turnout, CV still boosts turnout by large margins. (2) Con defines a \"quality\" vote as one that \"would have been cast without compulsion. \" This would mean that all compelled votes lack quality--which isn't true. When voting was first introduced in Australia (1925), turnout increased by nearly 33%. [4] So, 1-2% of poorly cast votes is a drop in the bucket. So clearly many votes cast only because voters are compelled to cast them are quality votes, judging by Con's own source and judging by the fact that people made a premeditated effort to vote well, as Lisa Hill describes. CV does not endanger quality. VOTING ISSUES1. Low turnout is bad: it hardens socio-economic divides and elitism. Con dropped these points. CV boosts turnout (Con dropped this) and so it solves for this.2. CV reduces free riding and violence; it brings moderates to the polls.3. Voting can be compelled insofar as the benefits to society outweigh the objections. con misinterpreted and dropped this point.4. CV promotes education as I show in point B, which was dropped.5. Con uses his quality claim against all my sub-points. Yet, the impacts of bad votes are negligible and non-unique. Thus, we can dismiss MOST of Con's attacks on my case just by taking out this claim. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://www.statisticbrain.com...3 - Harvard (previously cited)4 - . http://www.aec.gov.au...Thank you to Subutai, Tyler, and the Judges!","This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. 1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous. >members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed a. is rare b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics >members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification a. is very common especially outside the U.S. b. will render them unable to vote for all topics 2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers. Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.","Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress. Response to Con 1) Error with Surveys Certain properties and attitutdes of the population can be estimated by a survey method. Its not feasible to get everyone physically in a room to vote on all issues. The survey is less of a sample and more akin to an online voting system. Instead of voting on politicians, people vote on issues they support (or not) and the politician carries those ideas forth. The error resides in not having a representative sample of the population fill out the survey. This error can be mitigated by making the survey mandatory like the census, or raising public awareness. However, I want to stress that in a population of 1,000 people, one can survey a small fraction of the population and still get reliable results. http://en.wikipedia.org...(statistics) 1a) Vote in Election vs Filling Out Survey Voter turnout rates for 2010 were estimated to be roughly 60% for the 2008 presidential election. Many other election turn out rates are far lower. Although we have a democratic process for elections, not everyone exercises their right to vote. Further, election do not gather the opinion of everyone who votes. A fraction of the population gets \"fit\" into a political platform. There are only 2 major parties in the U.S. If the candidates from the two parties both want to keep a ban on certain energy drinks, there is no way to tell what the population at large wants. Perhaps the population wants to lift the ban. A scientific poll can achieve a higher level of accuracy in measuring the population's opinion at large. Polls can make a representative democracy more democratic. Fact Check http://www.factcheck.org... 1b) Coverage Bias and Exclusion Phone surveys are not optimal. Online surveys work better. Everyone theoretically has access to the internet through home, work, public libraries, phones or even electronic stores that sell computers. Its a question of literacy more so than access to technology. 1c) The Shy Elephant Factor No elephants must be shy. The surveys can be completed online. Your survey results and answers are not published, the answers are anonymous to others. We are not debating an exit poll. The shy elephant is a strawman argument. Its a misrepresentation of my position. 2) Surveys are Efficient Surveys and opinion polls are used in many cases to form policy and guide politicians. Elections are nothing but surveys of the general population as not everybody votes. Its ironic that Con refers to an ITU survey \"as of June 2010, 77.3% of the US population has access to, and uses, the internet\" to make a case against surveys. Clearly ITU did not speak to everyone in the country, I never heard from them! Everyone has access to the internet and can be polled, but everyone must not be polled in order for the survey to accurately reflect public opinion. The effectiveness of online surveys should be left for another debate. 3) Not a Direct Democracy In cases where surveys can be used, they should be used. The government must have the consent of the governed. 4) Surveys Would Enhance the Right to Petition A survey enhances the Right to Petition for everyone that fills it out. Citizens get to express their opinions through polls and those polls are actually meaningful if the politician is obligated to carry them out. Its a real time right to petition, with action that back up the results. I think Pro is confusing the right to gather signatures for a petition with the right to assemble and to protest. Wisconsin was a case of protesting and assembling at the capital building, not signing a formal petition to present to Governor Walker. Summary: Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress. The techonology is in place and the mathematics behind surveys is well tested, frequently used and sound. There is no reason to exclude the voice of the people in the process when applicable. The US should ensure that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.","Compulsory Voting Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet v...","Imabench's vote for my debate was completely wrong First off here is the debate we are talking about:http://www.debate.org...\" Imabench voted for awesomeness because of his claim that I didn't have a convincing argument\"Which is completely legal.....\"He completely ignores the fact that my OPPONENT did NOT have an argument at all.\"Maybe you were looking at a different debate, here is what I saw. Awesomeness started a debate about why personal electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, and laptop computers should be allowed in a classroom, and proceeded on listing 18 reasons about why they would be beneficial to learning in class, which I have rewritten below. The ones I have underlined were the ones that made the most sense to me1 - They have built in dictionaries and tools to improve grammar2 - They can integrate video to make learning more stimulating3 - Some have access to newspapers4 - They save money on textbooks5 - They save money on fictional books6 - Valuable skills in logic7 - Access to educational websites8 - Interactive and extra curricular learning9 - It improves graduation rates in schools that implement these policies10 - It improves Standardized Test Scores in schools that implement these policies11 - Improves writing skills among students in schools that also implement these technologies12 - Twice as many students meet state standards in courses compared to those students who dont have this access to these devices13 - Encourages diversity14 - More interaction in learning (he counted this twice)15 - Peer feedback16 - Can encourage the flow of ideas between individuals17 - Efficient working where students can access work on different computers18 - Improves learning experience19 - Improves grades in 76% of cases where students have access to these gadgetsThat was the Pro's opening arguments, the Con (DeadBrownApple) responded not by showing that personal devices like phones more often are used for social media and prove to be just distractions, or source any evidence suggesting that the Pro's claims are false, and instead bases his entire argument that electronic devices decrease the quality of education, even though Awesomeness showed four times how it has a dramatic increase on it. DBA then starts by saying that the frontal lobes of these students are not fully developed and thus would decrease their performance, but he does not show why students still show improvement in their grades with these devices despite allegedly having undeveloped frontal lobes. Then after that DBA Immediately quotes that \"I do agree with the contention that Electronic Devices administered by the school would help in the quality of education. \"Which completely nullifies everything he just argued and reinforces Awesomeness's claim that these electronic devices do help students. He then gives a borderline semantics argument about how since the students dont own the devices and are renting them from the school that these devices all of a sudden cant be used as evidence. After that, DBA drops all other arguments, dismisses the rest of them as inelegible since \"they can be learned without electronical devices\" and then argues that since they dont need those devices that they shouldnt be allowed, even though the Pro only was arguing that they IMPROVE these things. That was round 2, In Round 3 awesomeness responds to the few arguments that DBA did not drop and argues that these devices could be put away so as they would not be used for cheating. DBA then does the unthinkable and then starts to counter the arguments that he had previously dropped in the final round when Awesomeness cannot argue against is and after DBA had already dropped all of those arguments. On top of that poor conduct DBA even finishes the debate by saying, \"You basically argued for the wrong thing and therefore it is automatically void. You have lost this debate. At the very least, I hope you understood why you lost this debate.\"And that alone could have cost him conduct, along with arguing dropped points when Pro could not defend his own points because it was the final round========================================================================================================================================================As for my actual vote, I could have easily given the Pro (Awesomeness) arguments and sources and conduct since the Con (DBA) didnt source any statistics and had very poor conduct, particularly at the end of the debate. But instead I simply gave the arguments point to the Pro (Awesomness) since the con dropped over half of the Pro's arguments, then readdressed them at the very end of the debate, and still wasnt very convincing. So my vote was not only justified, but I was giving DBA some mercy by only giving Awesomeness 3 points when I could have justifiably given him 6.","Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID ... Voting identification schemes are prone to a high level of errors associated with any bureaucratic system. Even people who bring the correct ID to the polling station may be disenfranchised as a result of misspellings on the part of the government agents who issued the documents, clerical errors over dates, duplications, and problems in the transmission of data between different levels of government. Women who have recently married and so changed their name are also likely to be denied a vote. All these problems are likely to affect poorer citizens with lower levels of literacy and civic engagement, and so are also discriminatory.","Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.","The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change the outcome of the election I am not arguing that Hillary rigged the election. This is irrelevant. Please be sure to argue for your actual position in round 2, which should be that the recounts will change the results of the election. I don't believe the recounts will change the outcome of the election because in order for Hillary Clinton to win at this point, all three of the aforementioned states will have to come out as Hillary actually winning. The chances that all of the three states will do this seems very small. Perhaps 1 will, but that won't be enough for Hillary to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Donald Trump will still have more than 270 even if one or two of those states is lost. The recent objection is with the voting machines themselves, and some computer experts believe many voting machines in each of the aforementioned states have been hacked. However, while it is true that the voting machines are pretty archaic, for they use a Windows 2000 style of programming, almost none are connected to the internet [1] and cannot be hacked that way. In order for them to be hacked, the person would have to have access to the voting machine or the voting cards and tamper with either. The likelihood that this occurred in all three states in a widespread enough of a manner to effect the election seems slim. It would take a lot of coordination, and people would have had to have had access to either of those two things, which are under strict protection by the states they reside in up until election day. And on election day, poll workers are watching the machines the entire time. Bottom line, is that it seems very unlikely any such hacking occurred on such a large scale, and it doesn't seem likely all three of the states will end up going to Hillary Clinton Source: [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...","Direct democracy Introduction is not relevant to the debate. R1) Only voting MAACs often need internet. Other MAACs will only need few minutes on internet, to give their election point. More then 80% Americans reportedly uses internet. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Yes, voting is also done trough internet. Voting MAACs would of course, allow non-voting MAACs to use their PC for few minutes. If someone can not handle the computer, it is good thing if he doesn't vote. I thank my opponent for making an argument for my case. My opponent obviously does not know that access to servers can be limited to specific countries. In other words, it could be hacked only from America. Since it doesn't benefit American people to crush their own system, programmers would only have to deal with several individuals. R2) It makes ruling impossible for individual politicians. That is the whole point of direct democracy. It makes it possible for people to rule. What does my opponent mean by educating whole country? It is absurd. People will just thrust other people who are already educated on each specific issue. There would be no totally new government. Every congressmen who done well would remain in congress. Election points are never automatically reset. If non-voting MAACs are satisfied with how their representative(voting MAAC) is doing, country's politics wouldn't change at all. R3) We are talking specifically about America(which is to be concluded by number of congressmen(535), I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough). I don't see any wars over religion in America. There would be too much voting MAACs to kill them enough to change vote. It is much easier in America's current system to kill few congressmen. - They can possibly be re-elected each time, as long as they are alive. - There are not meant to be any campaigns. Most of the people would give their election point to their friend or family member who knows what he wants. Then that person checks out which voting MAACs are voting for what he wants, and then that person gives that voting MAAC his election points. I hope my opponent now understand proposed system better.","\"should voting be done online\" Thank you for your response. My opponent once again brings up hacking; however what he is speaking of seems conflicting and unsure. forged currency is essentially impossible on the internet and has no relation to this argument. Now my opponent stated \"China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited\" however, firstly, China is still classified as a third world country, as many parts of China are still below the poverty line. Regardless of this China has grown rapidly in its internet penetration, from 1.78% in 2000 to 46.03% in 2014. My opponent brings up the population of the two nations I mentioned, however my argument wasn't that online voting is common, but it has been successful in other nations.","This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however; 1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective. 2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote. Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.","Would complicate elections Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3","Voter ID's Voter fraud, according to those who argue in favor of Voter IDs, is a major issue with many cases documented. However, this is misconstruing the issue. Voter fraud does indeed happen; however, voter ID would do little to stop it. An exhaustive study that compiled reports of voter fraud found that out of all the elections in America since 2000, there were 10 cases reported of in-person voter fraud, which only Voter ID could prevent (1). The overwhelming plurality of fraud actually involves absentee ballots, which made up 24.2% of cases. Ensuring the integrity of elections is important; however, voter ID is one of the least efficient ways to do this. With regards to the California race, the situation was resolved as the fraud was discovered, suggesting that our government is equipped to handle such cases of fraud without needing IDs. I contest that personal experiences should not be considered in these arguments; they cannot be verified. With regards to the assertion that Voter ID can prevent and deter multiple types of fraud at the polls, Pro is correct. However, all of those types of fraud that Pro mentions are examples of in-person fraud, which is the exact category in which so few cases of fraud occur (2). Notwithstanding any arguments about minority discouragement, Voter ID law is simply unnecessary. The cases that exist that are preventable by Voter ID are few in number, and the controversy over Voter ID detracts from the real issue of absentee fraud. Sources: 1. http://votingrights.news21.com... 2. http://www.brennancenter.org...","Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.","Mandatory voting does not enhance legitimacy of govt. Even if compulsory voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not improved. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random votes, \"just for the fun of it\" votes, protest votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?","Voting Reform I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future. It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative. The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process. I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing. Good luck BSH 1.","\"should voting be done online\" Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it\"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that \"if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote\". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away \"do not deserve to vote\". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks \"Old people run the country\") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...","Websites can strengthen democratic institutions. The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries. What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/. 1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011 2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011","The Electoral college should remain the method of electing presidents in the United states. quite the Jeffersonian, unequal representation is inherently undemocratic. To bad Jefferson didn't get his way and we now have a senate that unequally represents the public. Must've worked well because the European Union mimicked this formula when calculating seats for their governing houses. Lets see your next argument is that hopefuls try to \"beat the system,\" aren't they really using the best strategy within the system? I mean if a football player runs a punt-fake, are they really beating the system? aren't they just good strategists? Also hey remember 1982 and 1986, yeah a majority of California voters put Regean in the white house. So your next beef is that you get attention during the primary but not in the final election. Well here in Wisconsin I haven't seen one ad, not one. That's my point, some states influence the primary, some the final election. It makes candidates have to be more versatile and it sends them through more electing \"filters,\" forcing them to get elected on many issues with a wide spanning support group. In regards to people voting for party, yes that is true, it's called an information shortcut. Voters use them a lot. This requires the parties to maintain a certain image. When that image falters (such as with Bush), the party loses (look at the republican seat losses in 2006). Regardless of how the electoral college system works, voters will use information shortcuts. Oh and ps. the most effective campaign ads are specifically negative ads which make reference to opponents voting records, that seems like pretty valuable information for the voting public. You are certainly right that large states get the shaft on the deal, just like they do in the senate. But let us remember that it is extremely rare that the winner of the electoral college doesn't win the majority (or plurality in some cases). More than changing the result, the electoral college tends to alter the strategy of campaigning. And that is good for a majority of Americans and hurts a few.","In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here\"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. \"Protecting the integrity of our elections\" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they\"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today\"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don\"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.","\"should voting be done online\" No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting","The Electoral College is outdated \"Yes our votes can influence the E.C., but they make the real choice. When will we really be able to elect our leader?\" If one is 18 and a registered voter, he will be allowed to vote in 2016. I am starting to believe that we are discussing the problems with the current electoral college instead of debating whether it is outdated or not. I think we agree on the fact that our votes DO count in the election of a president. We have been electing presidents the same way for the entire existence of our nation. That has not changed. The electoral College was designed as a method to represent the popular vote (which it has accomplished all but 4 times) in a nation that, at the time, had limited communication. The electors represented the states. Today the Electoral College, though not perfect, still represents the people. The election process today has changed with technology and the ability to communicate quicker and easier. The voting results are counted much faster and we know the next elected president. We have many issues with the process like multiple voting or not getting all the absentee ballots counted but those kind of issues would remain even if the Electoral College was removed and we used straight popular vote. The bottom line (for round 2) is this: 1) We do elect our own presidents as a nation through an institute that has effectively worked for more than 230 years. 2) Most of the issues in the election process are not a result of the E.C. being outdated. 3) I have to assume that my opponent should have selected the \"Pro\" side of the debate?","Online voting should replace traditional voting. I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and \"confirm\" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.","Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.","Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11","A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel","Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11","The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Because you have conceded that the electoral college system does violate the democratic principals of equal vote weight, I will not cover this argument in my last response. This only leaves the argument that the electoral college system is necessary to prevent corruption. I see no reason to add an intermediary between the voter and their vote being counted. Contrary to your argument, this increases the chance of corruption. This intermediary is just another point of failure that can manipulated, paid or otherwise mislead. Your main argument is that the electoral college can prevent corruption. The electoral college is not a good solution at preventing corruption. What I propose is a better popular voting system that would be significantly stronger at preventing corruption, voter fraud and also deliver equal vote weight. Blockchain technology is decentralized and has no single point of failure. It would be impossible for a voter to vote twice when blockchain technology is associated with solid two factor authentication. This would make the blockchain system significantly more resilient than the electoral college system. Blockchain technology is already being used in voting and is the way of the future. It is very short sighted to think that there is no better way and the current electoral system will remain what works best indefinitely. Other countries are already at various stages of deploying blockchain technology to offer more efficient and secure voting platforms [1]. Has far as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being sociopath or not have nothing to do with the electoral college being a good system. I personally didn't like either candidate and found it very sad that this was the best we could come up with. Regardless of the election outcome and as your candidate Donald Trump stated, \"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.\" [2] Sources: https://venturebeat.com... [1] https://twitter.com... [2]","The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the \"regular\" First Past The Post system we used today, found the \"early predicted winner\", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... \"Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything.\" - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's \"Hacking Democracy\"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.","Online voting should replace traditional voting. It appears that my opponent's only true objection is the possibility of hacking. In the first round, I stated that such a system could be created and regularly updated to prevent intrusion from pirates and hackers, thereby dismantling my opponent's only objection. As such, no new evidence is admissible. The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. My opponent agreed on several points, at least in theory, that this is indeed a good concept. With the sole objection addressed and countered, and concurrence with my ideals, I respectfully request an Affirmative ballot. Thanks.","Online voting should replace traditional voting. My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to \"nuh-uh\". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.","New Age Electronic Government As a millennial, am I the only one noticing we haven't been using modern technology (supercomputers, smartphones, and other devices that connect everyone and everything in it) to our advantage? With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. taking up everyones time I think we have been overlooking the potential political advantage these devices could provide for our generation. As a backdrop for my argument I think I can assume WE all believe congress and government in general is becoming more and more corrupt with every election (based off record low approval ratings). However, We The People still continue to vote into office the same people we are unhappy with. Why? Maybe because we feel hopeless, misinformed, and minute compared to these career politicians that continually propagate corruption. I would like to suggest a futuristic and corruption free government with the help and use of atomic supercomputers. Picture logging onto a website so secure it would take a technical complex larger that google to hack (making voters feel more secure). You have the options of opening a local, state, or federal topic form with issues that relate to your local, state, or federal laws and bills. Here you can get consolidated and factual information from private companies that have no reason to be biased for or against an issue. You then have one vote on the issues related to you which will be viewed by a single president and his cabinet that YOU THE VOTER bring into office. He will log onto this website as well and be able to see directly (without interference from hackers because of the supercomputers) what major issues We The People see that needs to be fixed based on an interactive and integrated map of the responses from the participants. To incentivize this website we would give (lets say 1%) tax cuts to those who participate. This would eliminate the need for congress, which might seem extreme to most, but think about it. Getting rid of the two party, corrupt, old, and deadlocked congress we have right now and opening up this office basically to everyone for a vote on every MAJOR issue would end corruption, gridlock, and the two party system. Also, making the voter feel more hopeful, informed, and important in each issue.","\"should voting be done online\" My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement \"\" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote \"\" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond \"a lot of hacking in internet\". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...","Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11","Online voting should replace traditional voting. Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!","The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]","Engagement with democracy If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11","Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11","allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.","Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf","Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11","Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11","allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability","allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise","Efficiency Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11","Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting"],"string":"[\n \"Recent voter ID laws major purpose is to keep people from voting (details) 1)The often said reason for these new voter ID laws is to prevent and to eliminate the problem of voter fraud. However the fact remains that voter fraud really does not happen. For example over a 5 year period the government found only 70 cases of voter fraud. http://www.factcheck.org... 2)So why would state governments take time out of their day to institute voter ID laws when there isn't a problem with voter fraud? Is it because they want to waste a billion dollars every 4 years in order to pay for the ID's? http://www.democrats.org... I doubt that is the reason. 3)Well let's see what a political strategist for the SC senate republican Caucus says about an AP report that voter ID laws are affecting blacks more than whites, his response was, \\\"Nice! [this] proves EXACTLY why we need VOTER ID in SC.\\\" http://www.thesunnews.com... https://twitter.com... 4)Want to know what Wisconsin republicans did after they passed a law requiring voters to get special ID from the DMV in order to vote? Well they closed DMV's in heavily Black and democratic neighborhoods. http://wisconsinwave.org... http://www.searchingforchetbaker.com... 5)In 2008 alone at least 5 million people showed up to vote but found that they either did not have the right ID or had been purged from the voter rolls. http://www.opednews.com... 6)How many more people will be unable to vote in 2012 because of new voter laws? Well 21 million American voters currently do not contain the proper voter ID's the new laws require. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Conclusion: The only reason a government would enact laws that waste billions of dollars and makes it so harder for everyone to vote and makes it so millions are unable to vote on election day is because that government wants to keep people from voting.\",\n \"Technology to give all a vote I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate. When we lived in small tribes the people could stand up for their needs and they would be heard. I believe what the ancient Greeks did was to solve a problem that there where to many people and they had to design a system of democracy as we know today. Voices travel through regional systems and voting happens only to choose the new leader. But i think people should vote on more than they leaders. Their leaders should provide the best possible course of action and the people then vote for or against it. Technology allows us to do this. This must be a better form of governance than what we have now because a government should not have the power to make choices without understandingredients what the people want.\",\n \"Technology remains insecure and a security risk. Technology is enhancing security, not threatening it. Measures are being implemented to ensure cyber-security and further technology is creating new, local, initiatives for security on the ground. Ushahidi Crowdmapping - an interactive, collective, mapping tool - was used to expose, and remember, political violence that occurred in Kenya’s 2007 presidential election[1]. [1] See further readings: Ushahidi, 2013.\",\n \"Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy Only where the ballot offers a \\\"none of the above\\\" option can compulsory voting being truly democratic. However, where this is the case if the \\\"none of the above\\\" option achieves over 50% of the vote does democracy simply fail and the state fall into anarchy? that would be truly democratic, although, hardly pragmatic. Consider that in most British elections the majority is not in fact the winning party, but in fact, the non-voters.\",\n \"Resolved : The Electoral College should be Removed My opponent argues that the electoral college system is superior to direct democracy because the delegates can make a more intelligent decision than the majority. Ignoring the elitism, \\\"faithless electing,\\\" where electors vote other than their promise, has only happened 158 times in all American history, and has never had an effect on the election result [1]. Thus, the only distortion of democracy instated in the electoral college is the disproportionate voting described last round. My opponent argues that the Electoral College favors republicanism, where voters choose representatives. In my proposal, voters elect a governing President directly, so both proposals are republican; however, my system does not give voters in underpopulated states extra votes and does not implement a system that counts a dissenting population towards assent. Further, my proposal is more favoring than the Electoral College to the political minorities of every state, because these minorities are not counted towards the candidates they vote against. Thirdly, my opponent contests that the Electoral College is \\\"fairer\\\" to small states, when in fact, it is unfair to the people living in more populous states. Direct election would yield a one-man-one-vote system, which is fair to everyone in the United States, while the electoral college gives people in rural states four times as much electoral power as those in urban states. Discrimination by location is most certainly unfair. I would like to clarify that I did not contest the creation of third parties; rather, I stated that the Electoral College prevents third parties from becoming successful, and, in fact, causes them to serve against their purpose. There is no advantage to the Electoral College; it merely distorts election results by discrimination and abuse of the minority vote and squashes third parties. Thus, it should be removed. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting I will begin by extending my thanks to tylergraham95 for engaging with me in this debate. In this round, I shall present my own case as to why voting ought to be compulsory. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTION 1. Democracy - according to Encarta, is a democratic nation; a country with a government that has been freely elected by the eligible electorate. 2. Vote - according to American Heritage, is an opinion case in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. Compulsory - according to Merriam-Webster this means mandatory; obligatory Ought, according to Encarta, expresses desirability. For example, if someone says \\\"you ought to fix the sink; it's been running for ages,\\\" that person is implying that it would be desirable to fix the sink. It may therefore be useful to define one more term: desirable, according to Merriam-Webster, denotes that something is advantageous or beneficial. Consequently, it is my burden in this round to show that compulsory voting is desirable (beneficial), whereas Con must show that it is not. PRO's CASE Now that we have a clearer understanding of the topic, I can present my arguments in support of compulsory voting. It is my thesis and main contention that compulsory voting (CV) is beneficial. If it is, then it is a desirable course of action that a democracy ought to take. Sub-point A: CV will boost turnout. \\\"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since.\\\" [1] \\\"One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting.\\\" [2] Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. \\\"The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor\\\"even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects.\\\" [3] \\\"Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt.\\\" [4] Sub-point C: CV corrects against \\\"free riders.\\\" \\\"The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing...Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold\\\"it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout...It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour.\\\" [5] Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. \\\"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized--ome might say hyper-polarized--by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook.\\\" [6] Sub-point E: CV reduces violence. \\\"State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society \\\"in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives\\\".\\\" [3] \\\"The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate\\\"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes \\\"the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change...\\\"An apathetic electorate\\\"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely.\\\" [7] \\\"Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives\\\"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent\\\"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest.\\\" [4] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS The sources above detail how beneficial CV truly is. It has the capacity to boost voter turnout consistantly, which in turn helps bridge socio-economic gaps with tangible impacts for electoral fairness. Moreover, this type of high-turnout actually enhances governmental legitimacy. CV also combats free riders, who immoral glean benefits from a system in which they do not participate, and it decreases polarization by ensuring that it is not simply the more extreme elements of the electorate who are voting. This also has the potential to reduce sharp and jarring policy shifts as different extreme elements assume power. In addendum, CV has tangible benefits in that it promotes peaceable dialogues over violent clashes. Therefore, CV is beneficial, and I must urge a PRO VOTE! Thank you! SOURCES 1 - Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 2 -Harvard Law Review, 2007, \\\"The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States,\\\" 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, \\\"Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation,\\\" St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 4 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, \\\"The case for compulsory voting,\\\" Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 5 - Lever, Anabelle. Philosophy Professor-London School of Economic and Political Science, 2008, \\\"Compulsory voting: a critical perspective,\\\" British Journal of Political Science, [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...], p. 11 6 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, \\\"Opt-Out Voting,\\\" Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 7 - Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, Adjunct Prof. of Law at DePaul University \\\"Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election,\\\" 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 I apologize in advance for any formatting errors--I am being forced to use a library computer as my own laptop in undergoing repair. Thanks to the judges and to tyler. I looked forward to a great debate!\",\n \"Voter photo id laws. INTEGRITY This one of those debates that just needs to center around common sense. Common sense tells us that the voting process should have some integrity. We should be able to trust that the official elected to office was elected by a majority and not by a small group of people engaging in fraud. None of us wants our vote canceled out by somebody who voted twice. Election fraud even if supposedly rare now is something that needs to remain rare and with the citizens of America (and probably several other countries), becoming more divided over politics are also becoming more incentivized to win by unethical practices. After all you are keeping a scary monster out of office in the mind of the average person. It is my contention that it is better to take a proactive approach to preventing election fraud. The last thing we want is some Manchurian candidate who gets into office by the extreme effort of a small group of people. We saw something similar to that in DDO\\\"s last election (not counting the \\\"emergency\\\" election that elected Ore-el). A small group of people controlled the outcome of that election and it probably wasn\\\"t fair. The dangers the Democratic process faces, needs to be anticipated instead of responded to. By the time we know to respond to a stolen election, it is probably too late. I\\\"m not really alone in this either. This is basically a common sense position that most people agree with. According to one study 75% of voters agree with voter ID laws. If we were to put voter ID laws to a vote, the people would decide it is a good idea. THE MYTH OF VOTER SUPPRESSION I do have legitimate studies that show that voter ID laws in fact do not suppress votes, but before I reveal those, I want to explain the voting process so the voters can understand why this is the case. Being turned away at the polls, does not indicate being turned away from voting. What happens to a voter if they show up without a photo ID in states with voter ID laws is that they receive what is known as a provisional ballot. They vote on this ballot and a lot of times, no further effort is needed on the voter\\\"s part. Other times the voter may receive a letter in the mail just to check a few boxes and return to insure they have their vote counted, and that they actually cast the vote. [1] I also want to take the time to note that reasonable accommodations are made to help people vote who would be overly affected by voter ID laws. Accommodations allowed by most states: =607;1.\\\"Have religious objections to being photographed (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin) =607;2.Are indigent (Indiana, Tennessee) =607;3.\\\"Have a reasonable impediment\\\" to getting an ID (South Carolina) =607;4.Do not have an ID as a result of a recent natural disaster (Texas) =607;5.People who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking and have a \\\"confidential listing\\\" (Wisconsin)\\\" [1] The voter ID laws do not affect absentee ballots or mailed ballots.[1] So if an individual is extremely burdened to get an ID, they can just mail a form. I get these forms in the mail every election cycle. It is actually probably even way more convenient just to check a few boxes, lick the envelope and shove this stuff into a mailbox According to on highly respected news source who used available data from Georgia and Indiana where these laws have been in place for some time: \\\"(Reuters) - Democratic claims that a large number of Americans could be prevented from voting because of photo identification laws are probably overstated based on evidence from Georgia and Indiana, the two states where the laws have been in place for multiple elections, Reuters found.\\\" [2] These states have also done a lot to reduce the fear of critics. For example they have made sure to hand out free ID\\\"s and I see no reason why other states could not replicate that, since it has been so successful. VOTER FRAUD Voter fraud does happen and since ID isn\\\"t required in many places it is extremely hard to detect. Some other types of voter fraud mentioned in an article by USA Today include \\\"Critics of voter ID laws also fail to note they are designed not just to stop voter impersonation but also multiple voting, non-citizen voting, people voting in the wrong precinct, out-of-state voting and voting in the names of fictitious people.\\\" Voter fraud is hard to detect because of the secret nature of the ballot on top of the fact no ID is needed to vote. The highly touted news 21 study has a ton of flaws and is basically trash. This study was done by several college students and funded by very liberal sponsors. There was definitely a conflict of interest which is not enough to discredit the study on its own. The news 21 study was extremely amateur and not useful in any way. \\\" Essentially, they politely asked for public officials to send them all of their examples they had of election fraud.\\\"[5] According to their own criticisms of the study; \\\"[I]t is possible that some jurisdictions which did respond failed to include some cases. Despite the huge News21 public-records request effort, the team received no useful responses from several states. Hundreds of officials responded with short notes \\\" some handwritten, even coffee-stained \\\" saying they had no cases of fraud. Some jurisdictions insisted that their computer system lacked the capability to search for election fraud cases. Dozens of jurisdictions flatly refused the requests. For nearly all the data News21 received, there would be some vital piece of information that had been requested specifically but that was missing. [T]here are cases in the database that contain so little detail that they cannot be properly categorized as one kind of fraud or another.\\\" [5] CONCLUSION I appreciate Four Trouble allowing me to debate this with him. Next round I plan on contesting just about every piece of evidence my opponent has brought forward. Election fraud is real, no legitimate study has been done to know exactly how significant it is but we should proceed with caution and do everything in our power to protect the integrity of our election process. If people think their votes are being erased by those who engage in fraud they will become disenfranchised Thank you. sources 1.http://www.ncsl.org... 2.http://www.reuters.com... 3.http://www.usnews.com... 4.http://www.usatoday.com... 5.http://www.conservativeblog.org...\",\n \"Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote Perhaps the infrequent nature of public votes is an indication of the level of confidence in the quality of the system. I agree that this does discriminate people who are less from those that are more knowledgeable. Another way of saying this is that it discriminates those that can contribute meaningfully towards the decision from those that cannot. In the majority of cases, the less knowledgeable could become more knowledgeable by reading the relevant materials. Everyone's votes still do still count, however. At the moment, each individual vote taken in isolation is usually almost insignificant in the calculation of the result. This proposal will just alter the level of significance of the vote up or down slightly. In engineering, there is the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. If a telephone line has noise that is too strong, and a signal that is too weak, the signal is lost amongst the noise and the communication is useless. Uninformed voters are the noise of the system, and there are many more of them than informed voters. Thus the signal is too weak compared to the noise. This means that decisions reached through popular voting are largely irrational. Your last sentence is a little defeatist. To paraphrase, you say that the current system is poor and it won't change. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed system will realistically be adopted, just that the act of making decisions through voting would be improved if it did.\",\n \"This house would abolish the Electoral College I would like to thank death23 for accepting my challenge. We have agreed to debate this subject in a PM.C1: Undermines American DemocracyThe Electoral College (EC hereafter), undermines the popular vote in the U.S. Presidential elections. Four times through history, the EC went against the public vote (1). Furthermore, the percentage that is won in the EC vote is often far greater than that of the popular vote. For example, in 2012, Presient Obama was won re-election. Although he won 51% of the popular vote, he received over 60% of the EC vote (2). This also creates an interesting problem. It only takes only 11 states to win the EC, and thus the Presidency (3), even if that candidate loses signifigantly in the other states. As a result, it is mathematically possible to win the Presidency with a mere 22% of the popular vote (4). The EC also violates the one-man, one-vote principle. In certain states, the EC makes your vote worth far more than had you voted in another state. An individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly 4 times more in the EC than in Texas, because Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes in a population of 532,668 citizens and Texas 32 lectoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. As FairVote notes \\\"By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one \\\"elector\\\" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one \\\"elector\\\" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the EC.\\\" (5)C3: Swing statesAmong the major disadvantages of the EC is the fact that the election is usually decided by a handful of swing states. Consequently, candidates often focus solely on those 6 of 7 states, while ignoring the rest of the country. Should the EC be abolished, it would force candidates to work to gain votes in all 50 states.C4: The EC lowers voter-turnoutBecause all states have a winner-takes-all system, it discourages people from voting. If you are a conservative living in a solid liberal state (or vice-versa), why would you bother to go out and vote knowing that your vote won't count in the overall EC vote. Taylor B notes (6): \\\"I think it would be more equitable to force more nationally-focused campaigns. Imagine Barack Obama speaking to crowds in Dallas or Mitt Romney campaigning in New York City. At the very least, it might engage more people in the national debate. If we ever hope to breach the 60% voter turnout threshold last seen in the 1960s (the last two elections have produced around 57%), this is one way to do so. The lawsuits that emerged in the fallout of the 2000 election will be less likely to reappear. When one state decides an election, it behooves all sides to fight for those electoral votes. If the popular vote decided the winner, I doubt we’d see such fallout again.\\\"Richard J. Cebula and Dennis R. Murphy concludes in his research paper published in Public Choice (7) \\\"Abolition of the present Electoral College system may not only lead to more voting, but, in particular, to more voting for alternative parties, and hence to more voting for alternative national policies, than presently takes place.\\\" Over to con.Sources1. http://www.factcheck.org...;2. http://www.fec.gov...;3. http://www.martyduren.com...;4. https://www.squarefree.com...;5. http://www.fairvote.org...;6. http://www.forbes.com...;7. Note that the full source can be accessed by going to sci-hub.cc and Copy+Pasting the URL, though the conclusion is available on the website. http://link.springer.com...;\",\n \"The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. The US should switch their voting system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote, or Instant Runoff Voting. This would help people to elect who they really want, not who they think has the best chance. Let me give you an example. Here's what happens under our current system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. But you know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have a chance at winning. So instead of throwing away your vote, you vote for the Republican candidate. Here's with the new system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. So you rank him #1 on your ballot. Now out of all the other candidates, your second favorite is the Constitutionalist candidate. So you rank him #2. After that, you'd rather have the Republican candidate than the Democrat, so you rank the Republican #3. Finally, you don't really like any of the others, so you turn in your ballot like such. This would open the door to third-party candidates that don't get their fair say. It IS within our reach. Countries that already use it either for their Congress or leader: Australia Canada Fiji India Ireland New Zealand Papua New Guinea Even some places in the USA already use it, like Berkeley, California Basalt, Colorado And many others. So here's how they count it: They take all of the #1 ranked candidates and get the results. Then, the candidate who has the least amount of votes is taken out, and then they count all of the #2 votes from the people who ranked him #1 and adjust accordingly. They do this until someone reaches over 50% or their are only 2 candidates left. We can change America for the better, we just have to have the willpower.\",\n \"The Electoral College should be abolished The united states was founded as a democracy, Not just a republic. \\\" This statement is inherently false and a common misconception (which I debunked previously). The founders intended for it to NOT be a democracy. It has some democratic features, But the point of it being a republic is that it is not a democracy nor was it founded to be one. \\\"The Electoral College system has gone beyond protecting the minority and has instead subverted the will of the majority on several occasions. I don't think candidates would necessarily campaign only in big cities, America is pretty evenly split between urban and rural\\\" The point IS to not have a simple majority mob-rule an entire country. It's not about urban and rural, The populations of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Georgia are about 50% of the entire country. Assuming that the % of registered voters is correlated to the % of the population (which it is), Then the ruling president would just pass laws and pander to these 8 states. That means the people living in the other 42 states are not represented in the government. Can you imagine that? The population of 42 states not represented. The electoral college guarantees the representation of all people in the government. \\\"but in America we have an unrepresented majority in all of the branches of government. It has grown beyond a simple check and it has subverted the will of the people. \\\" I think there is an unrepresented majority in the house of reps mainly due to gerrymandering, Which is a whole other issue. I think, Historically speaking, The president has been representative of the majority of the country. The electoral college is certainly not perfect. However, In the vast majority of elections the winner turns out to be the one with the most votes, And because of the electoral college that person had to campaign all over the US instead of just a couple states. It might have subverted the will of the people in some cases but that isn't congenitally bad for the country in the long run. I would say the electoral college is defiantly a better system than having the popular vote decide. It might need to be amended to fit the population a little but more, But the system itself, In my opinion, Is the greatest, Fairest one in the world. What other system would you recommend?\",\n \"US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote http://www.time.com... - this is why voter ID laws are bad. Legal citizens who have residencies and polling places cannot vote because their college ID, birth certificate and drivers licenses are not proof enough. I have a question. Why, if voter fraud that can be stopped by ID's, is enough of a problem that it effects national, state, or township elections and delegitimizes the vote is this a partisan issue? I will tell you why Republicans push this and democrats do not. It is because the legitimate voters that this causes a hurdle for or those whom it stops completely are almost all democrat. The young, the intercity poor and the old retired who may have trouble getting the right ID become disenfranchised and won't make their voices heard because they can't be \\\"trusted\\\". In fact, in PA alone, since voter ID laws came in to place voting , which had been moving steadily up, slowed. More people were barred from voting then all the voter fraud in the state for 10 years earlier until now. You say that you are protecting voting when your causing less people to vote. My parents are democrats who live in a republican area after redistricting. For many elections their vote counts for nothing because the republicans always win. We need to be looking at the other ways we are destroying the vote, not the negligible amount of fraud. To answer your question I refer to my previous statement that most of the voter fraud is not done by non-citizens or done in a way that allows for requiring ID. Basically when you move to an area or reach 18 your polling place will contact you and set up your account using government records to identify you as a citizen. If every person eligible in this country voted instead of barring young and poor than fraud would be impossible. By making it harder for people to vote you are making fraud more effective by giving those who commit large scale fraud in ways that do not require ID (electronics rigging, absentee voter impersonation) more potential votes to use. By the way, firearms, alcohol and driving can kill other people. Voter fraud has never effected a major election or even on a county level. Why bar legitimate voters to stop the 10 people casting 1 illegal vote each when the votes of those barred is much greater than fraud that can be stopped by ID laws. You say that it is harmful enough to the people that blocking thousands of voters is important enough to catch them. I say, then why is this an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans and not something agreed upon. I would suggest that republicans are trying to block the Democrats voting base. Is it a coincidence that the legitimate voters barred from voting the most are the young and the poor? Sorry if I made spelling, grammar, punctuation errors or my sources didn't get on. I'm trying to type from an iPod touch, which is difficult.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" points well noted...but are u trying to say that young people have no tym...sir they can't remove just 1 hour frm their work time..by they can party ryt...sir I appritiate that u have IT baground but sir do u ssly don't know that nowadays hacking is so simple...sir nowadays it is so simple to do fraud in a currency note so this is just a internet..sir u spoke about rural areas having internet...sir than they are no more rural...coming to connectivity.. Sir China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited,check it out..sir talking about the Estonian and the swiz govt adopting this method..sir first check their population.sir still I say the worlds largest democracy still does not follow this method. HAD A gud debate 😃 😉\",\n \"On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates\\\" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as \\\"buying votes\\\" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.\",\n \"Voting Should Be Compulsory \\\"Voting is an integral part of democracy, without this process we go back to oligarchy were only a few people decide; The idea of democracy is to avoid this. So how will mandatory voting help? Well first let us look at the statistics, in America's 2008 Presidential Election only 64% of the population voted, less than 2/3 of the population voted! If the other 36% had voted I'm sure there would have been a different turn out.\\\" This statement proves that more votes make more of a difference. You say that \\\"The less religion you have, the more \\\"Democratic\\\" of a society\\\", this is not correct. Democracy is decided upon the votes of the majority. If the \\\"majority\\\" is religous, then the vote of the religous (if all the same) will decide the poll. Democracy is not about the reason or background of the decisionmade by each individual, it is about which choice was voted by the majority of voters! So that quote is not a fact. This statement will also help you understand that more votes make more of a difference. It\\\"s not about the origin of the vote....that is not of interest. As long as there are more people voting there will definitely be a difference, for better or for worse. I will reference a sentence in your argument; \\\" there is no way of knowing if there would be any change \\\": OF COURSE THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING! No-one can tell the future! I am here to try and prove to you with facts and evidence that this would be the best way to go.\",\n \"Technology to give all a vote \\\"I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate.\\\" Pro The technology is already present, its called the internet. Con will contend against the resolution on the grounds that not everyone should have a vote. Babies, mentally handicapped, and comatose patients should not get a vote. Next, a lot of the legal language is incredibly complex and even if the common folk could understand, many would opt not to understand and vote anyways. This is just Con's opening statements. Con will make a full argument next round. Note the resolution could be more clear.\",\n \"Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process I believe that the Citizen's United versus Federal Election Commission ruling harms the election process. Furthermore, I believe that the Citizen's United ruling undermines democracy in the United States. Here are my contentions:Contention One: It can allow corporations to instill fear into American voters, andContention Two: It will allow corporations to give large amounts of politicians. In return, these corporations expect the politicians they give money to to pass laws and acts that don't bebefit the populace.I can't wait to read my opponent's case.\",\n \"Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Vo... Voting is an important right, but it can be qualified by the government for an important reason. Voting rights are not made totally meaningless by voter ID laws. In most states, voters who lack identification can still cast provisional ballots that can be checked and counted later. The ID requirement is a mere inconvenience, not a complete barrier to voting. And again, the government’s interest in preventing voter fraud greatly outweighs the minor inconvenience suffered by a small group of voters.\",\n \"on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process The media has been a majorinfluence on how people think, instilling fear and hatred into people’s minds.That is why I affirm the resolution that Citizen’s United v. Federal ElectionCommission harms the election process. I believe that this ruling harms theelection process because it gives corporations the power to influence peoplethrough the media. It also gives the power for corporations to donate money topoliticians to get certain laws passed. In this debate, I would like for you touphold the value of democracy, whichseems to be the appropriate value according to this debate. Contention One: This ruling allows corporations to influence voters bythe media. The media influences people tobelieve things that are either exaggerated or not true. For example, from American Politics written by Peter J.Woolley and Albert R. Papa, there are alarming statistics about how much themedia has influenced what people believe. One statistic provided is “On anational poll why they believe thecountry has a serious crime problem, 76% of people cited stories they had seenin the media.” But in fact we don’teven really have a serious crime problem. “But between the 1990 and 1998, when the nation’s murder rate declined by20%, the number of murder stories on network newscasts increased 600% (notincluding the OJ Simpson stories) !” As you can see, even when crime wasgoing down, the exposure of crime stories went up, and because of that peoplethought that there was a serious crime problem, based on what they saw. Now thereason why this is important is that Citizen’s United v. Federal ElectionCommission ruling allows corporations to create advertisements that degrade acandidate, and because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it. If theRepublicans went on TV, playing an advertisement once every 30 minutes sayingthat President Barack Obama is a bad person (which is 96 times a day!), theywill most likely believe it. That is why it undermines democracy, because itcan aid corporations in misleading people to believe things that aren’t true. Contention Two: This ruling allows corporations to donate money topoliticians. Now, the second reason why itundermines democracy is that it allows corporations to donate money to politiciansto pass laws that are either unjust or unwanted by the populace. For example,the Koch Brothers donated $76,000 to Rick Perry to deny social welfare and thehazards of pollution. And as of now, Texas, the state he governs, is the toppolluting state, polluting over 1.2 million pounds of toxic gas into our air.Rick Perry also denied a $2 billion check from President Barack Obama forhealthcare. That money could have in fact helped over 2 million people getaffordable healthcare. That money could have cut the amount of uninsured peoplein half. That money could have lowered Texas’s uninsured percentage from 23.7%to 5.8%. Where is the justice, when the average American citizen, when theaverage Texan, is asking for healthcare, but he or she can’t get that money topay for his medical bills when the governor says no only because of twobrothers? There is none! That is why it undermines democracy, because itremoves the American voice. Conclusion I close with this. One day I waswatching my favorite movie: The Great Debaters. I remember in one of hisdebates, Henry Lowe, one of the debaters, said a quote from a Roman General:“Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant. “This means they create desolation andcall it peace. That is what is happening right now. With this ruling, thegovernment is allowing corporations to muzzle the voices of everyday Americansso they can exercise democracy. But this is not democracy. This is fascism.Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “The liberty of a democracy isnot safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point itbecomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That in its essence isfascism.” Even President Barack Obama says that this ruling helps “Wall Streetbanks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshalltheir power to drown out the voice of everyday Americans.”\",\n \"A Debate On The Electoral College Good Luck! My esteemed opponent has analyzed the electoral college and found it wanting. He believes it to be an inefficient formality. He offers two contentions to support his resolution: 1. \\\"The Electoral College [EC] makes votes unheard. \\\" 2. The EC gives some regions more representation than their population warrants, and others less. I will begin by correcting Con's analysis on what the EC is and what the EC is not. Then I will then refute his two contentions. Finally, I will offer a brief conclusion. (Note: I reserve the right to offer new arguments in round two) --------- Con believes that the main purpose of the modern EC is to echo the popular vote of its consituency. To a degree he is correct, this is a major function of the EC, but not the only one. The United States is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is a collection of sovereign states that give up certain aspects of their autonomy to form a larger 'union', or 'Federation'. [1] Therefore, when electing the Head of State for a Federal Republic there is more to consider than regional population. A state needs to be adequately represented in order to benefit from being a member-state of a Federation. The EC ensures that smaller, less populated states receive the same benefits as the larger ones. Without the EC smaller states such as Wyoming or West Virginia would receive even less federal consideration than they do under the current system. Politicians would have little reason to visit the mid-western states, and even less reason to give them the same benefits of union that larger states like New York and California enjoy. ------------ Claims: 1. The EC makes votes unheard (a,b,c). 2. The EC leads to overrepresentation and underreppresentation. Rebutals: 1. a) My young opponent claims that the voices of some citizens voting for the losing candidate go unheard (in cases where the winner of the popular vote loses the EC vote). I find a different interpretation to be more accurate. Their voices do not go unheard, rather the voice of the states Does get heard. b) This is not an argument in favor of reforming the EC. This is an argument in favor of conducting the federal census more often. We have the technology to make this more feasible today than we did when the census was instituted in the mid 1800s. c) Con is correct in his historical analysis. However, he offers no explanation as to why the election going into the House of Representatives is a bad thing that suggests that our election methods should be reformed. 2. . If someone were to look strictly at the popular vote then Con would be correct in this claim. However, as I have discussed above, there are more things to take into consideration. This nation was founded both on the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of separate states. The two branches of congress were created with the same principle as the EC. It apportions some of the representation based on population (House of Representatives) and the rest based on statehood (two votes for each state in the Senate). This gives smaller states like Wyoming the same representational proportion quoted by Con in Congress for the very same reason that the EC takes both measures into consideration - to ensure that the smaller states have some say in the Federal government. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that these states are given a base level of power to make their existence in the federation worthwhile than it would be to say that its citizens exercise more 'power' than others. ------------- CONCLUSION The United States of America was founded with two things in mind: the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the separate states. These principles are reflected in the apportionment of Congress and the apportionment of the Electoral College. Both of these institutions ensure that the more populace regions like the Northeast and the West Coast do not dominate the less populace ones. A base level of power is necessary in order for all states to enjoy the benefits of union. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.\",\n \"On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO. Thank you for the kind words and for the amazing debate. This was a great discourse and I hope we can get some good votes. Since there isn't any structure to round 5, I will simply use this round to summarize the main points and give one final appeal to the voters. We both agree that there are improvements to be made, however, this debate is about the current voting standards and their impact on debate. org. To properly analyze the, we must look at how debate. org was before the standards and where we stand today. As I have shown in the example of Contradiction vs. WriterDave, prior to the vote standards, there were far less quality votes and less quality feedbacks. Moreover, vote bombs were a huge problem and they had to be countered. This resulted in votes being wasted by having to be countered time and time again. Thankfully, the new standards resulted in a clear understanding of what was expected by the voters and we now have a way to remove bad votes without having to waste good ones. Although vote moderation may cause a lack of votes, they have certainly improved their quality of votes. Even though mods make mistakes, they aren't out to \\\"get you\\\" and aren't out to make debate. org less enjoyable. They are simply there to ensure that the votes meet the proper standards. Our moderators work very hard to ensure that debate. org is a fun and enjoyable place. They are willing to work with the community to improve the members to improve their voting and debating. They are often quick to acknowledge their mistakes and don't hold their mistakes against that person. For these reasons, debate. org is a better site because of the current vote standards. Restating the Cost/Benefit analysisPotential Costs-Less votes-Possible mistakes by moderatorsPotential benefits-Higher quality votes-Higher quality debates-Higher quality membersThe resolution is negated because debate. org I have shown that debate. org is a better site because of the standards in place.\",\n \"Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote I thank Con for competing with me in this debate.1) The Electoral College increases \\\"Deliberative Democracy\\\": This point barely even correlates to anything How does the fact that it's controversial immediately lead to becoming more informed? Deliberative Democracy means that the people weigh their options in deliberation before they make a majority vote. Whether the Electoral College system is there or not, the voters' decisions are going to be deliberate. They are going to weigh their options based on the candidates credibility etc. The Electoral College has nothing to do with deliberative democracy. However, if a National Vote is placed, Deliberative Democracy would increase and citizens would become more informed because they have more of an incentive to vote. \\\"Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as 'a subject terrific for political analysis's is truly a gift that keeps on giving.' He furthers that 'the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching.' This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including 'clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens.\\\" -Con How is this evidence? These are a bunch of claims that do not even correlate. The fact that the Electoral College is good for political analyzation, doesn't necessarily mean that it would immediately make voters try to be more informed because of it's complexity in the system. \\\"Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org...; 2) I already stated that majority and minority fraud could be controlled by other methods other than the Electoral College. Con clearly ignored that statement Sub Point C) It's not a straw man. I clearly stated a fact which is that it is less likely that there would be extremely close scores since there would be large pools of data. A straw man would mean that I misunderstood his statement and attacked it from my misunderstanding. CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University\\\"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote \\\"if the popular vote should be close\\\"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in\\\"all states where any ballots could be contested.\\\" Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it \\\"isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required.\\\" Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. First of all, Con stated that close election recounts in a National Vote, would cause dangerous delays Am I right? Because if I am, than I do not think it is faulty to say that under a direct vote, you wouldn't have to worry too much about dangerous delays because close elections would be much less likely because of large pools of data. 3) That was barely evidence. It's just logical to assume that if most people vote for a certain president (and most people live in cities) than I would conclude that most people in America want that President Now I will conclude this with a statement: The Electoral College was original established because the writers of the Constitution did not want the people to have too much power because they felt that the majority was uneducated. Which they were. But people nowadays are much more informed and have much easier access to information. So I would think that it is fair to conclude that the people should have more power in deciding their Presidents. I also believe that people claiming that the Electoral College is necessary because it \\\"represents all of the country\\\" are wrong because the Electoral College forces Candidates to focus on a small number of states that are \\\"politically centered\\\" and practically speculated to be representative of the US's wishes. Why base votes on speculation when you could base them on actual evidence, such as a fair majority vote? It's just common sense that a vote would be more fair if the people who live in a country get to decide who runs their country.It's just common sense that a majority vote would be an accurate vote.It's just common sense that the Electoral College is outdated. If people are going to have a President representing their country, than they better be the ones to decide who becomes the President to their country! The People should ruleNot the Elite\",\n \"for democracy Even though you are con in this debate, judging by your 1st round argument, I would assume that you are for democracy and I am against democracy. Democracy is a very popular form of government throughout the course of history yet it is not always the most effective form of government. There are many problems face by the democratic system and I will first be pointing those problems out in my first round of the debate. First of all, the action of voting and acquiring the results of the voting is a very time consuming and inefficient process, the government often spend a long time simply trying to collect the votes and that often leads to a loss of important time when it comes to decision making. A well-known example would be United States presidential election in 2000 between Bush and Gore, where weeks were taking acquiring and analysing the votes simply to determine who won the election. Secondly, corruption is often a large problem in democratic systems. In countries with a large population, tallying and acquiring votes become more difficult and time consuming, and leads to an increase in the chance of voter fraud. A very recent example would be a case in Sandoval County, New Mexico, where a man name Eugene Victor first voted under his own name, and then waited until the next day to vote again under his son\\\"s name without his son's permission. He would have gotten away with this if he didn't turn himself in afterwards, and this shows how easy it is for voting frauds to occur in a democratic system and ultimately leading to biased votes that could cause a lot problems. Thirdly, the voting public is often not aware of the full context of the voting/election and that could lead to the voters being easily influenced to cast a certain vote. Not just so, the increase in today's level of media saturation also causes the voters to face more influences around them that once again would lead to vote for a particular party under heavy influence instead of under their own will. Further points will be stated in my second round argument, Thank you.\",\n \"This House would introduce compulsory voting P1: It is never fine for repressive parties to come into power. It doesn't matter if they were elected democratically. When I say apathetic government, I mean governments that take away rights. They don't care about the people and their rights. P2: I never advocated for anarchy. This rebuttal is out of nowhere and irrelevant. C1: What is society? Why must it be more important than individuals. Society is just a group of individuals, so sacrificing the individual to 'society' is just sacrificing individuals to other individuals. Everybody is repressed, not helped. C2: And what if the majority don't want universal suffrage? The reason that blacks and women could not vote for a long time was because the majority \\\" white men \\\" was better off without their vote. Prisoners are also not the only group that is prevented from voting in certain parts of the world. Young people and non-citizens come to mind as well. C3: The merits of democracy are not irrelevant. My opponent's whole argument rests on the idea that compulsory voting is more democratic. Thus, if that reason is illegitimate, it must be used as a point of argument. And the only evidence provided against it was the idea that democracy is better because it is more democratic. A system where people do not agree with oppressive rulers is better, because that is when they rebel, and sometimes even put in something better. If the majority always supported their rulers, America would still be a British colony. France would still be a monarchy. Mubarak and Gaddafi would still be in power. P1: I don't necessarily mean that politicians lie, but they do focus on non-issues to sway the public. Examples include Barack Obama's birth certificate and Mitt Romney's tax returns. Both were non-issues that swayed public opinion. My opponent's only argument against compartmentalizing voters was that it was undemocratic. I don't even know how that relates. It isn't an argument, it is using a meaningless word to criticize something. Rather than rebutting my source, my opponent chose to throw an ad hominem at it. Considering that she figured out objective morality, I would definitely say that Rand is a moral authority. There is no such thing as a reasonable denial of liberty, or any right for that matter. That is why they are rights.\",\n \"This house would abolish the Electoral College Re: CostIn my opinion, this is by far con's best argument. Although amending the Constitution is indeed a timely procedure, I would argue that anything that will substantially improve U.S. democracy and give the people a greater say in the government is worth the time and cost. In 2013, a Gallup poll reported that over 60% of Americans favor abolishing the EC (1). What would it take to get Congress to pass an amendment to abolish the EC? Perhaps a loss in the Presidential election if their candidate got more votes, but lost in the EC. The last time this happened was in 2000 and, as I cited in the first round, this has happened a total of 4 times. Another possible way this could happen is if we see a 269-269 tie. In almost every election, there was a very real possibility of a 269-269 tie. In the current 2016 election, there are at least three ways in which the EC could end up as a tie (2). Because of the way the EC is set up, the Democrats have a signifigant advantage in the EC (3). If the Republicans suffer a loss in the EC, as the Democrats did in 2000, we could very easily see a bipartisan call to repeal the EC. Re: FederalismCon argues that the EC maintains Federalism. The problem with this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of Federalism. The EC does not maintain or enhance the power or soverinty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress, not on the EC. Federalism can be maintained with or without the EC.Con also argues that abolishing the EC would be detrimental to the interest of small states. Ironically, bigger states already have a slight advantage in the EC as opposed to small states because candidates focus on the states that give the biggest payoff. Consequently, they ignore states such as Alaska and Wyoming that have such small popuations (4). But the bigger issue is with the one-person-one-vote principle. Although the EC may be more or less favorable to big states, a vote in smaller states is worth far more (see my arguments in round 2). Is it really fair that a vote in a small state is worth far more than one with a bigger population?Re: RisksIn my opinion, this is con's weakest argument. Cons argument is essentially an argumentum ad antiquitatem - appeal to tradition (5). Although the EC has been intact since the Constitution was ratified, it is time to move on from an archaic system. In the original Constitution, Senators were elected by the state legislator, not by a direct election. This changed with the ratification of the XVII amendment in 1913 (6). The old system no longer worked and increased corruption and deadlocked Congress. Likewise, the EC is outdated and should be changed. Thank you con for a good debate. I look forward to your reply! Sources1. http://bit.ly...;2. http://bit.ly...;3. http://wapo.st...;4. http://bit.ly...;5. http://bit.ly...;6. http://bit.ly...;\",\n \"The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.\",\n \"Abolish the Electoral College The Electoral College system of electing the President of the United States of America should be changed to a popular voting system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US system of voting to elect the President is done through the Electoral College. This is enumerated under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It was established in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention. During that time, it was impractical for Presidential candidates to travel trough the country campaigning. Votes were counted in each precinct; carried on horseback to the state capital, and then, each elector reported to the nation's capital to cast their vote. Furthermore, the President was elected indirectly. This was meant to prevent the general public from voting for someone they did not know. Each state is responsible for determining their voting procedure. At the time this was established, reasonable justification was present for that system. 221 years later, those justifications are not valid. Widespread media enables candidates to disseminate their message to the millions of voters with televisions, radios, computers, and other forms of media. The election process is computerized in many states, making the tallying and computation of the winner much quicker than it was in years past. Additionally, voting rights have been given to a much broader spectrum of voters, making equal representation a question of civil rights and freedoms. I contend that the Electoral College, in its current form in today's U.S. Federal Government, is unnecessary using the following points in this debate: 1.The Electoral College limits American citizen's access to Presidential candidate's media and attention, making their votes seem meaningless. 2.The Electoral College discourages voter turnout in non-swing states, thus affecting concurrent elections for other races. 3.Faithless electors can cause the non-representation of voters in the states they serve. 4.The electoral college undermines the intelligence and integrity of American voters by assuming they do not have the capability to make and informed, educated decision, and 5.The electoral college has failed to represent the popular vote of American citizens Determining the President by a popular voting method would give greater accountability to individual reporting districts, and equalize the power that swing states and large electoral vote states have over the Presidential election process.\",\n \"The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote In the spirit of democracy, however, isn't the \\\"winner takes all system\\\" obsoleted? Doesn't it vilify the rights of minorities and favor the majority? But if the president campaigned in the big states, wouldn't the minorities of the small states migrate to the majority of the big states, therefore becoming the \\\"majority?\\\" So what? The constitution can be amended. Let's use Bush v. Gore 2000 as an example. Gore had 266 votes. Bush had 271. Without the inclusion of electorate votes, Gore would have won, and prevented the future collapse of the economy. Popular vote was won by Gore. Electoral Vote was won by Bush. Without the electoral college, Bush wouldn't have been elected; and, without the popular vote, Gore wouldn't of been elected. Therefore, the popular vote should not be vilified or considered inaccurate. Politicians vote on other politicians. State pretty much overrides what popularity dictates. Presidents are unfairly elected. So why do we consider ourselves a democracy if something like the Electoral College is permeated and not vilified?\",\n \"Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Vote :D I thank CON for her quick response.CON asks \\\"Wouldn't you agree that having your voice heard through the senate would make your vote less chaotic and more balanced?\\\"1) Not necessarily... Senators don't always fully represent what you want, but rather what they believe you want. In the electoral college, its a winner-take-all system. This means that if you are a part of the minority in a state (ex. Democrat in a Republican state), your vote won't count towards anything, as all of the Electoral Votes goes to whoever wins in that state. Your voice wouldn't be heard.2) I fail to see how, in any way, would a vote be \\\"chaotic\\\" or \\\"unbalanced\\\". Your vote is your vote....There aren't many characteristics to a vote.Con says \\\"Don't you want balance between large and small states?\\\"1) Don't you want candidates to campaign in all states, instead of the few closely divided ones? A handful of closely divided battleground states get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates.She writes \\\"Wouldn't you want recounts confined to a few states and not the whole country?\\\" 1) Computerized voting systems are operational.2) With the newer, fully computerized voting systems, including optical scan and direct recording electronic systems, the vote totals may be transmitted automatically to the central counting facility.3) Recounts shouldn't stop are government from doing its job.Con says \\\"Where would the justification be in spending over 2 billion dollars per candidate just for campaigning?\\\"1) She presents no evidence for this \\\"2 billion\\\" figure.2) Spending limits exist to make sure rich candidates don't have an advantage over poorer candidates. http://www.fec.gov...If everyone has the same budget per state, everyone would be at the same disadvantage. Now if everyone was at the same 'disadvantage', it wouldn't truly be a 'disadvantage'. http://dictionary.reference.com... Con says \\\"Electoral vote provides organization, wouldn't you agree that order is needed for everything?\\\"1) She doesn't explain how the Electoral College provides any 'organization' or why it's true. 2) Sure, order is ideal, but wouldn't a popular vote system have 'order' too?Con says \\\"Electoral vote allows smaller states with a smaller population to have an equal pull to a larger state. Does popular vote allow this or any kind of balance?\\\"1) Through Electoral Vote, the minorities in any state won't have any voice in who becomes president. Why? Because no matter who they vote for, all of the electoral votes will still go to the majority's choice. This decreases and discourages voters.2) In popular vote, I don't see how any boundaries will be drawn between states. A democrat vote in a Republican state will have the exact same affect as a democrat vote in a Democrat state. All votes would be equal, and no one would be discouraged.3) Everyone will have the power or ability to decide an outcome through popular vote. One of the definitions of balance is the power or ability to decide an outcome by throwing one's strength, influence, support, or the like, to one side or the other. Needless to say, popular vote can allow the existence of 'balance'. http://dictionary.reference.com...==Questions== If constantly, the majority of America pushes for a popular vote system, why should the government continue to ignore them? Why should our voting system discriminate against candidates who have a broad-based support? Popular vote would encourage more voters, as everyone's vote will have the same affect and importance. Does the electoral college present the same benefit? Through the electoral college, the majority can actually be ignored. A candidate could lose popular vote, but yet be elected president through key states. Wouldn't a popular vote system better represent the interests of America? Candidates often only campaign in battleground states, where the support is still divided somewhat evenly. States that they are winning tremendously or losing too much will be ignored by candidates and forgotten. Why would this be fair and equal, or even justifiable? I await your response! :D\",\n \"The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System I will admit that the Ranked-Choice system is not a perfect system, for no voting system can be flawless. However, I am arguing that it is still better than our current first-past-the-post system. It actually does not produce the spoiler effect because such an effect would be impossible under the ranked-choice system. When I use the term spoiler effect, I am referring to the splitting of the vote between two candidates of similar ideology, resulting in the candidate of the other ideology winning. This cannot happen with a Ranked-Choice system because the voters voting for each of the two candidates of similar ideology would just rank the other candidate of that ideology as their second choice. Hence, the spoiler effect is eliminated. It may be true that the ranked-choice system may lead to a two-party system, but it is not as hard for a third-party candidate to make an election bid under the ranked-choice system. I will now present another example of how the ranked-choice system would benefit us. In the months of april and march, Michael Bloomberg was considering mounting a presidential bid. However, he decided not to do so because he feared being a spoiler that would lead to the victory of Donald Trump. Bloomberg would have been able to run under a ranked-choice system without fear of the spoiler affect. Although the ranked-choice system is perfect, it is better than our current system and we would benefit from adopting it.\",\n \"Resolved : The Electoral College should be Removed Thanks :) I hope I catch onto the style of debate.org, and good luck to you too The electoral college system of the United states does not need any change. ==My Arguments== 1. The population may not always have the best presidential candidate in mind. It is the job of the electoral college members to determine the best possible presidential candidate, and their absence would result in popular vote, a mass \\\"mob\\\", controlling our government. Even if the best suited President runs against popular opinion, the Electoral College is able to right this. ==My Responses== 1. My opponent contested that the Winner Take All system that is implemented in most states, the minority votes count towards the election of their opposition. However, this system is for the best interests of the American people. As Thomas Jefferson put it, in his reasoning for the Electoral College - \\\"Republicanism is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 10. Jefferson maintained that, '[a] democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.'\\\"[1] Additionally, the system of the Electoral college is more fair to smaller states than a popular vote would be. Just because farmers, for instance, make up a small percent of U.S. population, (but their authority is found in the Senate, where states all have 2 votes), does not mean that they have to be punished. The electoral college balances the U.S. population and equal state representation issue, and solves a problem that would present itself in the event of a popular vote 2. My opponent contested the establishment of third parties. My response- Are third parties *bad*? They present a new view point for the American public. They are merely exercising their right to speech and run for office. For these reasons, I support Neg. Source 1. http://en.wiki...\",\n \"On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process Thanks for debating with me and I hope we have a great debate! We would like to start with a proper framework for today\\\"s debate First, some Definitions Election Process- Includes voting, free speech, campaigning Harm- We would like to define undermine subvert the base or foundation of insidiously (oxford+merriam) (ADD IF----the NY Times and commoncause.org defines the Citizens United vs (FEC) as The Supreme Court\\\"s decision permits corporations, unions and other special interests to spend as much as they like to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates.) Obsv 1- Time sensitivity- Harm refers to any harms now, or any harms that are imminent. My opponents have to show you, Judge, any harm of great magnitude to the election process that is current or imminent, and we have to show you how without this decision does not harm the election process, and might even help it. Contention 1- Corporate Contributions Increase Voter Turnout Corporate contributions create ads and messages causing an increase in the number of voters, increasing participation in democracy. A 2010 Common Dreams article expresses that since corporations are free to spend funds on political ads, they spend an infinite amount of money on political ads. This obviously increases the number of political ads in the united states. Actually according to a wnyc article published in May 2012 , 70% of political ads were negative in the 2012 election. This all might seem bad, however, A Illinois Wesleyan University study found that increased voter turnout is due to negative television advertisements and that positive advertisements have no significant effect on turnout. By fostering an emotional response in voters, negative or attack advertisements and messages increase voter turnout. An NYC magazine study showed that negative ad-filled campaigns throughout history have been largely successful: In the Massachusetts senate races, Ted Kennedy volleyed Mitt Romney with negative ads, resulting in Kennedy\\\"s victory by 17%. George W. Bush used this same technique against John Kerry in 2004, and he won by a 6.5% margin. The impact is clear- Voter turnout is better for the democratic processes because the people\\\"s voices will be heard. With corporations funding campaigns and producing ads, there is an increased voter turnout, and therefore the democratic process is not harmed. Contention 2-Corporations are beneficial to society, thus they should have the rights of citizens Corporations have the rights of free speech protected under the first Amendment, just like a person. Huffington Post states that Corporations are the foundation of wealth creation, innovation, jobs, markets and the economy in our society. If they spend unlimited money to a certain candidate, the companies could save money, leading to more jobs. Corporations are run by people, help create jobs, and are consisted of people. Obviously, the corporations should be considered as a person. A Gallup Poll showed that Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech. The impact- is that since companies consist of people and help the people, when companies get it their way, the benefits carry on to the citizens. Thus if a company funds a candidate that gives them tax breaks, the company saving money can directly impact to the workers at the company getting higher salaries. Thus when people have reliable jobs, they have more time to stay informed on election news, thus leading to a more informed populous, hereby improving the election process. Contention 3- Super PACs are creating Competition Super PACs, which take the money from corporations and donate them to candidates, are actually creating competition between the political candidates bettering democracy and voter turnout. A February 2012 Slate Magazine article gave us is the Republican Primaries and how without Super PACs, Mitt Romney would win by a huge margin. But since there are Super PACs, there is a more competitive race for the fight for president, and this keeps other alternative candidates in the election too. Because of this, there are more choices in the election, and thus, with more candidates to fit these voter\\\"s ideologies, there is more voter turnout. Another study conducted by the CATO organization was published in 2002 which showed that without PACs, the Mccain-Feingold Act would apply and most donations would go to the incumbents instead of the challenger. With the PACs, the current law made by the Citizen\\\"s United decision would apply and money would go to both candidates. This makes the election fair and competitive. The impact is clear- With the more competitive environment, elections are tighter causing more voter turnout. However, if elections are not competitive, voters will not want to vote, as they already know who will win. This will lower participation in democracy resulting in harming the election process.\",\n \"The Internet is more useful than frustrating I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply \\\"vote\\\", which means, according to Merriam Webster, \\\"the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc.\\\" 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.\",\n \"Automatic Voter Registration Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact. We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments. My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don\",\n \"The cell phone verification system on this site is useless While I understand the need to ensure that voting spam does not occur, requiring a verification via cell phone text is ridiculous. Some people do not have cell phones, or cell phones with texting capabilities, or simply do not wish to give out their phone number online. Rather than requiring cell phone verification in order to vote, it should be that once you've verified your account via e-mail and completed three debates, you automatically gain the right to vote on debates, instead of having to e-mail support in order to be verified. This would lessen the amount of work support has to do as well.\",\n \"In a Democracy, Voting ought to be Compulsory. (LD Debate) Plato, the man who was considered the most influential philosopher of all times, once stated, “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” It is because I agree that voting is so essential to establishing effective government that I support the resolution, Resolved: In a democracy voting ought to be compulsory.Before I proceed to my arguments I’d like to define a couple of words in the resolution. According to Oxford Dictionaries, Democracy means a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Voting is to register a vote. Finally, Compulsory means to be required by the law. Therefore, the resolution clearly holds that I successfully argue for mandatory voting in democracies. In this debate, if I am able to convince you that democracies should adopt this guideline, you should vote for the affirmative. My VALUE, or weighing mechanism of this round, is PROGRESS. This means that mandatory voting would improve America’s democracy and its voting issues. Contention 1: Successful Mandatory Voting in Other CountriesAccording to THE NEWS (February 4, 2013), currently, 31 countries have compulsory voting, and yet, in countries like Australia, they didn’t have any revolts or serious problems with mandatory voting. In fact, voter participation has increased remarkably, along with the general awareness of the Australian citizenry. On the other hand, the turnout rates of voting in the U.S. are rapidly decreasing, and the only way to increase the amount of votes is to implement compulsory voting. According to Keith Olbermann from Salon Articles (November 5, 2002), 50% of voter participation doesn’t make a democracy; mandatory voting is essential in the United States. If half of the citizens refused to vote, America wouldn’t be a democracy at all- it would just be a really large oligarchy. Contention 2: Compulsory Voting Improves DemocracyAccording to Arend Lijphart, research professor of Political Science at University of California, low turnout is a serious threat to democracy because it distorts political influence, harms less “well-off” citizens, and destroys local governance. Compulsory voting is the best solution to overcome these problems. Yes, there are several other solutions such as infrequent elections, but compulsory voting, itself, can maximize turnout. Its advantages far outweigh the normative and practical objections to it.Also, compulsory voting is the only way to ensure that every voice, even those who are least the least privileged, are heard and acknowledged in shaping political outcomes. The research assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research, ACTA POLITICA (2007), Bart Engelen explained that low turnout provides a reason for worrying, and compulsory voting is the utmost solution. “Understanding turnout as a measure of political participation, I have argued that low turnout provides a reason for worrying. Because compulsory voting raises turnout considerably, it is able to enhance the democratic values of political participation, representativeness and equality. The notion of democracy implied in this view is well-founded in the practices and theories of democracy: ‘democracy is universally understood as a form of government involving ‘rule by the people’, which has essentially been its meaning since the term and practice were introduced’ (Dahl, 2001, 3405). In this respect, I have argued that compulsory voting sends a powerful signal to the people that each and every vote matters and thus motivates citizens to participate in the democratic system, thereby ensuring that the concerns of every citizen, including the least well-off, are heeded at the political level.” Contention 3: Mandatory Voting Works and Helps to Improve the Government.The most decisive way for preventing turnout decline is compulsory voting: in fact, it is the only way that can cause turnout to rise anywhere near 95%. Research (from New York Times, November 7, 2011) shows that countries with mandatory voting also have less wealth inequality, less possibility of political corruption, and higher levels of satisfaction with the way democracy is working. Lisa Hill, a professor of politics at the University of Adelaide, Australia, said, “ Here in Australia, where we love freedom as much as anyone else, we have a mandatory voting regime that is well managed, corruption-free, easy to access, cheap to run and has an approval rating of more than 70 percent.”Judge(s), let me ask you: is voting just a right or is it also a duty? Democratic citizens owe it to each other to vote so that, together, they can constitute democracy and collectively enjoy the benefits of living in properly functioning democratic society where everyone counts.Thank You.\",\n \"Debate.org should reform its voting criteria The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity. .. it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2.\",\n \"Police could influence their votes This could happen at any given polling station but it doesn't. These measures are being introduced as the European Court of Human Rights considers a blanket ban on voting for prisoners as a breach of human rights. It is likely therefore that the Government will introduce many procedural safeguards to ensure that the voting rights are exercised in a similar fashion to the ones outside of prison. Only then will they be fully meeting the expectations of the Human Rights Court which they do not wish to contravene.\",\n \"The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System One of the main reasons, among a few others, that drive people to not vote, is they don't like either of the two main candidates. Over the last two decades, politics in the U.S. have become more and more polarized, with the Democratic and Republican parties shifting more and more to the left and right, respectively. This results in a large percentage of the populace not voting because neither candidate appeals to them. This is the direct result of the traditional voting system. This video explains very well how a first-past-the-post voting method brings about a two-party system: ;(Watch from 1:40 to 3:50)The result of this system is that many voters are frusterated with both parties, and hence are much less likely to vote. The ranked-choice voting system, however, is different. It brings in more voters, because voters can vote for their favorite candidate without the fear of their disliked candidate winning because of the spoiler effect. Consider the same scenario explained in the video. After the first election, snake's voters and turtle's voters would not have to worry about the spoiler effect under the ranked-choice system. Snake's voters and turtle's voters would simply mark their least preferred candidate as such, to ensure that their votes will be transferred as they would want. This makes people much more likely to vote, because they would be able to vote without fear for a candidate that appeals to them. Con's argues that we should solve this issue of no voters first; however, the ranked-choice system is the solution.\",\n \"Voter photo id laws. I'll start with an overview of the case and conclude with rebuttals. I'll show exactly why, if my sources are correct (and they are), Wylted cannot win this debate.== Overview ==Wylted has dropped almost every piece of evidence I offered. He briefly contested the News 21 study in Round 2, but dropped it in Round 3, as well as dropping the rest of my sources throughout (note: Wylted mentions [1], [5], and [6] but doesn't argue them). At this point, my uncontested evidence must be taken as true; Wylted cannot argue the evidence anymore because I won't be able to rebut what he says. This dooms Wylted's entire case.Suppression. The argument here is simple: photo ID laws impose a severe burden on voting by increasing the cost of voting. For low-income individuals, this cost is up to $175. [8] The impact: when the cost of voting increases, voter turnout decreases. Wylted drops this argument in its entirety. I supported this argument with multiple studies, including the unbiased GAO report discussed in Round 3. [7] Wylted also drops my \\\"voting is a low reward activity\\\" argument (see Round 2 and 3 for elaboration). The impact: even a small cost depresses voter turnout. These arguments -- especially when taken together -- weigh heavily against photo ID laws.NOTE: Wylted abandons his \\\"provisional ballots,\\\" \\\"reasonable accommodations,\\\" and \\\"absenteee ballots\\\" argument (i.e. he drops my rebuttal in Round 3), so those arguments carry no impact.Fraud. There is virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud. I cited multiple studies which show that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare (e.g. the News 21 study says 0.5% of voter fraud is in-person voter fraud). Wylted also drops key arguments here. First, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is the \\\"most likely type of fraud to be discovered\\\" (this point is discussed in the EAC report). [16] Second, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is an inefficient and irrational way to influence an election (i.e. it's costly, difficult to coordinate, the easiest type of fraud to detect, and imposes heavy punishments). Finally, Wylted drops my argument on public perceptions of voting fraud (see section on Voting Integrity from Round 3). I discuss Wylted's \\\"fraud is hard to detect\\\" argument below.== Rebuttal == (1) Wylted wrote: \\\"The study linked to does indeed show that number. What my opponent fails to show is how many of those 21 million people can still easily vote, with their military ID, government or employer ID, school ID, certificate of live birth, passports and several other methods that escape me at the moment.\\\"Wylted's statement is utter nonsense. The study says: \\\"11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification.” [1] The term \\\"government-issued photo identification\\\" includes all forms of ID relevant to this debate. The debate isn't about whether to require an identification document (e.g. a birth certificate). The debate is about whether to require a \\\"government-issued photo ID.\\\" The study speaks directly to that issue. Wylted's attempt to discredit the study's impact simply has no bearing or relevance to this debate.(2) Wylted quotes this from [5]: \\\"Voter identification requirements alone do not determine turnout. Multivariate models that take into account other predictors of voting can paint a more complete picture between voter identification requirents and turnout\\\" (emphasis mine).The first sentence in this statement says photo ID laws affect voter turnout. Of course, other factors also affect voter turnout. So what? The study concludes: \\\"The results presented here provide evidence that as voter identification requirements vary, voter turnout does as well....The overall effect for all registered voters was...statistically significant....It appears that stringent requirements can reduce turnout.\\\"(3) Wylted quotes this -- \\\"[t]he district court found that the law placed no significant burden on the right to vote\\\" -- from [6] and then claims \\\"[e]ven my opponent's citations, support my position.\\\"Wylted's quote mining. The article states: \\\"This Essay surveys the voter ID controversy and describes original empirical research finding ID laws to have a negative impact on voter turnout.\\\" Yes, the study notes that some courts have upheld photo ID laws, but the entire study was about those courts being wrong. The mere fact that the study \\\"surveys the voter ID controversy\\\" doesn't mean the study agrees with the courts that have upheld the laws. Contrary to Wylted's claim, the \\\"citation\\\" clearly found that photo ID laws depress voter turnout.(4) Wylted wrote: \\\"I don't know where my opponent is getting his stats, but my ID cost me $20. In Indiana where they have voter ID laws, they made state issued ID's free for those who couldn't afford them.\\\"First, I'm not sure how Wylted doesn't know where the stats come from, since I've meticulously cited them throughout the debate. The stats come from the GAO report and from a study published by the Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School. [7] [8] I cited both in Round 2 and discussed them again in Round 3. Second, $20 is a severe burden for some low-income voters, and it's certainly enough of a burden to influence turnout, because of the perception that voting is a low-reward activity (i.e. even a small cost lowers turnout). Third, just because a state-issued ID is free doesn't mean obtaining the ID is free. Voters must still pay for underlying documentation (e.g. birth certificates), travel and transportation costs, and waiting time (often having to take off work). I explained this in Round 2, but Wylted ignored that argument (i.e. pretends I never made it).(5) Relying on \\\"Occam's Razor,\\\" Wylted says in-person voter fraud happens frequently because voter fraud is hard to detect.Occam's razor is the idea that \\\"among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.\\\" Wylted's argument -- or rather, narrative -- requires more assumptions than mine, so under occam's razor, prefer mine. Wylted's argument rests on at least 4 or 5 assumptions. Wylted names some of them in his argument: (1) the idea that politicians will do anything they can get away with; (2) the idea that in-person voter fraud is harder to detect than other types of fraud (which is wrong as noted in [16]); (3) the idea that in-person voter fraud is economically feasible (it's not); (4) lack of evidence is irrelevant (also false). The number of assumptions underlying Wylted's position make occam's razor inapplicable. The argument I make rests on a single assumption: If there's no evidence of something, it's probably rare. If anything, occam's razor applies to my position, not Wylted's. The problems with Wylted's argument don't stop there. First, in-person voter fraud is the easiest type of voter fraud to detect. I made this argument in Round 2 and 3, and Wylted ignores it entirely. Wylted cannot argue this point now because I'd have no chance to rebut it. There's simply no reason politicians would use in-person voter fraud when other types of fraud are much harder to detect. Again, under occam's razor, politicians are going to choose the cheapest, least difficult to orchestrate, and hardest type of voter fraud to detect. I explained earlier that in-person voter fraud is not the cheapest, it's inefficient, it's difficult to coordinate and bribe thousands of voters, and it's the easiest to detect. Occam's razor suggests that in-person voter fraud simply isn't how politicians would go about influencing an election. This is especially so because of the heavy punishments that attach to in-person voter fraud. Second, in-person voter fraud requires a massive campaight by politicians. Wylted says politicians will engage in in-person voter fraud because it's difficult to detet, but that ignores the practical difficulty of orchestrating a massive campaign. The reason a massive campaign is necessary is because you can't influence an election with one vote. Politicians need to coordinate and bribe thousands upon thousands of voters. Occam's razor suggests that politicians won't go through that trouble, not only because of the complexity, but also because of the economics (it's simply too expensive). Think about how much each person would charge to break the law and face the risks of detected. Consider the risks: if even a single one of these thousands of people is caught, the entire scheme falls apart. The logistiscs are simly so complex and impractical, not to mention how inefficient in-person voter fraud is at influencing an election.I offered a study on these very points in Round 2 and 3 -- the EAC report -- which talks about all these practical difficulties with in-person voter fraud. The study makes the opposite argument that Wylted's making: It's simply so complex, impractical, inefficient, and expensive that politicians are going to choose other forms of voter fraud to influence an election. I also cited a study on public perceptions of voting fraud, which suggests that in-person voter fraud simply doesn't happen, for reasons relatating to public perceptions of it.Third, there's an easy solution to the kind of in-person voter fraud (using dead people's names) that Wylted talks about: update the voter rolls. That solution won't suppress voters. Wylted's given no reason why we can't do that instead of photo ID laws.== Conclusion ==Wylted cannot in this debate with the arguments he's made. He's dropped almost all my evidence. He's banked his entire case on the idea that in-person voter fraud is hard to detect so therefore it's happening frequently. But as I've shown, there's a number of other reasons why in-person voter fraud doesn't happen (e.g. practical issues orchestrating it). I've also shown that photo ID laws suppress a significant number of votes. The net effect of these laws is to suppress voters.\",\n \"The electoral college stands in the way of election reform Alternative election methods such as Approval voting, Condorcet voting, and even Instant Runoff Voting cannot be properly implemented at the Presidential level if the Electoral College remains in place. This is unfortunate, given that these methods are a marked improvement on the current systems.\",\n \"A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.\",\n \"voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages The increase in the cost of voting ballots, would not be an issue, if those wishing to vote in their native language, were only allowed to do so on electronic ballot machines. A simple reprogram is all that would be needed. You said \\\"We cant afford to give out ballots to someone that cant vote properly\\\" In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson, had the Voting Rights Act passed. This act allowed all american citizens the right to vote, ignoring any discrimination. To quote Lyndon B. Johnson, \\\"Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.\\\" This act already covers language disabilities, and there fore it is the government and states duty to provide voting supplies not based on any discrimination. If you deny the right to vote based on language you are discriminating against those that do not speak english. By doing this, you are simply creating another example of the 1960's, when African Americans were not allowed to vote. America does not need this kind of negative attention, when we are already getting enough from the war in Iraq.\",\n \"Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic Other CountriesThe fact that Australia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, and other countries have a compulsory voting system doesn't mean that they have \\\"flourishing democracies\\\". It just means that their system of voting is different. Pro has failed back up the claim that their democracies are flourishing and has not provided evidence for how compulsory voting has made these countries better. All Pro has done here is state an opinion and has used a statement as evidence of itself to make an argument, which is a logical fallacy.Unrepresentative GovernmentsActually, governments are represented worse when people who do not wish to participate are forced to choose a side, because then those voters are not sure how they want government to be. They have no option to remain neutral but to cast a vote one way or the other, which inaccurately reflects how they really feel about how government ought to be (which is that others should decide who know better about both sides of the matter at hand). As I mentioned before, coerced voting tempts uneducated people to vote for a random candidate or cause, which is harmful to everyone in the ring.Interests of votersLet us consider the following scenario: At a voting booth for an election, an uneducated voter says to himself, \\\"I know nothing about candidate A or candidate B, nor do I care about the outcome of the election, but since I am required to vote by law I will flip a coin to decide who I shall vote for.\\\" He flips a coin and decides to vote for candidate A. Meanwhile, an educated voter who has studied the candidates and their intentions closely and has been taking both runners into much consideration has decided to vote for candidate B and strongly believes candidate B will do a better job in office. However, the educated person's vote is canceled out by the ignorant man's random ballot, thus affecting the outcome of the election and potentially putting a worse candidate is put in office.When the 45% less educated population is forced to vote, it leads to worse representation of the people's choice of law or candidate, and in effect becomes a violation of true democracy.\",\n \"Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting Thanks to tylergraham95! In this round, I will address framework, the Pro case, the Pro Con, and provide some reasons to vote Pro. FRAMEWORKSimply because VV is the status quo does not make it inherently desirable; yet, my example of slavery goes un-rebutted. By extending my argument, we can see that we cannot blindly accept VV as inherently desirable. Con is \\\"begging the question. \\\" Voting is desirable in a democracy, but what type of voting is most desirable is up for debate. Con must prove the desirability of his voluntary system just as much as I must prove the desirability of my compulsory system. PROs CASESub-point A: CV boosts TurnoutCon does not deny that CV boosts turnout. His only argument here is that boosting turnout decrease voting quality--I will address this assertion later in this round--but for now, Con DROPS that CV will increase turnout, and we can extend this point. Sub-point B: Low Turnout BadI made three assertions here: (1) that high turnout was \\\"one legitimating factor\\\" of a government, particularly as it regards the need for a mandate; (2) low turnout harms the socio-economically disadvantaged; (3) there should be a \\\"minimization of elite power. \\\"Con also makes three arguments: (1) that forcing everyone to votes pollute the polls with low quality votes; (2) that turnout alone does not boost credibility; and (3) that having people vote who want to vote legitimizes government more so than compulsion does. First of all, none of Con's points address my 2nd and 3rd arguments--they're DROPPED. Extend that low turnout harms the disadvantaged and that elite power should be reduced. These two points on their own are enough to show that low turnout is bad, even if you don't believe that compulsion is necessary for legitimacy. Now, let's take a look at Con's three claims. Firstly, Con repeats his \\\"quality of votes\\\" assertion, which I will address later. But, I will make one point here of importance. Italy does not enforce its CV laws. [1] Therefore, Silvio Berlusconi was elected VOLUNTARILY. Con makes a huge deal about how uneducated voters pollute the polls; yet we can turn his own example against him and say that this SAME phenomenon occurs in a voluntary system. I made this same argument in my last speech when I pointed out that this was a non-unique claim. Secondly, I stated that \\\"high turnout is one legitimating factor,\\\" which is not the same as saying that \\\"numbers ALONE do not add credibility. \\\" Never did I claim that high turnout was the ONLY metric, but it is nonetheless an important one, for legitimacy. Thirdly, if only a small group of people vote, they are the ones molding the government and the ones elected officials will focus on. Politicians wanted to get reelected, and so will make policies favorable to those who are likely to vote, and this means that leaders will pay less attention to other groups. This only entrenches socio-economic disparities and leads to elitism. When only a handful of people control the government it seems more oligarchic than democratic. So, low turnout is also bad for legitimacy too. Sub-point C: Free RidersCon's big claim here is that nonvoting is not free riding because people can still contribute without voting. Thus, nonvoters are not exploiting the system. This is wrong largely because of Con's interpretation of the social good that nonvoters are exploiting. The actual people who make up the government is the social good--not the community at large. Nonvoters may contribute to the community, they may protest against bad legislation, they may do community service, and so on, but they don't actually participate in electing the members of the government. Con argues, throughout this debate, that we want good, competent leaders. If good, competent, non-demagogic leaders are a social good, then when 10 of us vote for them, but some else doesn't vote, that person is enjoying that social good, i. e. those leaders, without having done the act of electing them; they are free-riding. Extend my argument. Sub-point D: PolarizationI argued that people who are more likely to vote tend to be more extreme (extremes have higher enthusiasm, loyalty to a cause, etc. ). The corollary is that moderates tend to vote less. Therefore, by instituting CV, we force moderates to vote, checking against polarization. Con DROPS this argument that nonvoters tend to be moderates. Extend it. Con's only attack here is his \\\"quality of votes\\\" point, which I will address later. Con also asserts that nonvoters do not comprise the majority in the U. S. However, there are many other democracies in which nonvoters aren't just the majority, but the vast majority. Even in the U. S. , non-presidential elections tend to hover around 40% turnout (60% don't vote), and even in 2012, around 43% of registered voters did not participate. [2] That is still a MASSIVE margin. Sub-point E: CV reduces violenceI am asserted that when voting norms atrophy the system is seen as being controlled by elites, and that the leaders cater to that group. This leads people to seeing the system as corrupt, and to use violence to express themselves. for example, the miners in South Africa who felt that they weren't being heard, the protests in Afghanistan when Karzai was reelected, the violence in Nigeria when Goodluck Jonathan was reelected, etc. . It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it's actually happened. Groups that lose at the polls and who simultaneously see the system as skewed or corrupt often resort to violence. When the GOP lost to Obama, there wasn't nationwide violence because the average Romney voter had a higher level of confidence in the physical polling system itself than people elsewhere. CV, inasmuch as it promotes good voting norms and reduces elite influence, does reduce violence. CON's CASEPoint 1: Right to Inaction(1) Con DROPS this argument that not all positive rights imply negative rights. We have the right to educate our kids, but we don't have the right not to educate our kids. Extend this point. (2) Con misinterprets my use of the jury example. I was arguing that some rights that take precedence over others. So, my right to due process is more important than your right to your free time; therefore, I can compel you to serve on the jury. Apply this to voting. My right to a representative government trumps your alleged right to not vote; thus I can compel voting. As Con misconstrues my point, we can extend it. The impact is that if I can show the CV benefits democracy, than your right to not vote is not enough to stop me from compelling you to do so. As my sources said, \\\"If there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. \\\" [3](3) Con DROPS my point that CV is not a violation of human rights. Extend it. (4) Con DROPS my arguments against his religious objections. He loses this. Point Two: Uneducated Voters(1) This is non-unique. As Con's own example of Italy shows, even with VV twits can be elected. So again, unless Con is willing to ban every single uneducated person from voting he cannot claim that I am the only person who might include uneducated voters in the system. And, if Con did ban those people, he would be infringing on freedom, which he says is a bad thing to do. (2) Con states, \\\"the idea that. .. CV translates into a politically engaged electorate is nonsensical. \\\" Con says that I have no warrants, yet this quote has no warrants. Saying that something's nonsensical is not SHOWING that it is nonsensical. Con's second source offers no citation for the numbers it gives, nor does it provide any methodology by which it attained those numbers. This source is questionable too. Furthermore, Con only addresses my point A argument, that people will educate themselves. He never addressed my point B that parties will educate voters. It's DROPPED, extend it. Point 3: QualityCross-apply my point B re: educating voters here. (1) Con agrees that only 1-2% of voters cast bad votes. Half of these, my source notes, will be spoiled or invalidated by their authors, so they won't be counted. So few donkey votes are counted then, that with an increase in voting of between 15-30 points on average, the effect of bad votes is negligible. They are \\\"incapable of distorting outcomes. \\\" And, regardless of how many actually turnout, CV still boosts turnout by large margins. (2) Con defines a \\\"quality\\\" vote as one that \\\"would have been cast without compulsion. \\\" This would mean that all compelled votes lack quality--which isn't true. When voting was first introduced in Australia (1925), turnout increased by nearly 33%. [4] So, 1-2% of poorly cast votes is a drop in the bucket. So clearly many votes cast only because voters are compelled to cast them are quality votes, judging by Con's own source and judging by the fact that people made a premeditated effort to vote well, as Lisa Hill describes. CV does not endanger quality. VOTING ISSUES1. Low turnout is bad: it hardens socio-economic divides and elitism. Con dropped these points. CV boosts turnout (Con dropped this) and so it solves for this.2. CV reduces free riding and violence; it brings moderates to the polls.3. Voting can be compelled insofar as the benefits to society outweigh the objections. con misinterpreted and dropped this point.4. CV promotes education as I show in point B, which was dropped.5. Con uses his quality claim against all my sub-points. Yet, the impacts of bad votes are negligible and non-unique. Thus, we can dismiss MOST of Con's attacks on my case just by taking out this claim. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://www.statisticbrain.com...3 - Harvard (previously cited)4 - . http://www.aec.gov.au...Thank you to Subutai, Tyler, and the Judges!\",\n \"This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. 1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous. >members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed a. is rare b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics >members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification a. is very common especially outside the U.S. b. will render them unable to vote for all topics 2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers. Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.\",\n \"Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress. Response to Con 1) Error with Surveys Certain properties and attitutdes of the population can be estimated by a survey method. Its not feasible to get everyone physically in a room to vote on all issues. The survey is less of a sample and more akin to an online voting system. Instead of voting on politicians, people vote on issues they support (or not) and the politician carries those ideas forth. The error resides in not having a representative sample of the population fill out the survey. This error can be mitigated by making the survey mandatory like the census, or raising public awareness. However, I want to stress that in a population of 1,000 people, one can survey a small fraction of the population and still get reliable results. http://en.wikipedia.org...(statistics) 1a) Vote in Election vs Filling Out Survey Voter turnout rates for 2010 were estimated to be roughly 60% for the 2008 presidential election. Many other election turn out rates are far lower. Although we have a democratic process for elections, not everyone exercises their right to vote. Further, election do not gather the opinion of everyone who votes. A fraction of the population gets \\\"fit\\\" into a political platform. There are only 2 major parties in the U.S. If the candidates from the two parties both want to keep a ban on certain energy drinks, there is no way to tell what the population at large wants. Perhaps the population wants to lift the ban. A scientific poll can achieve a higher level of accuracy in measuring the population's opinion at large. Polls can make a representative democracy more democratic. Fact Check http://www.factcheck.org... 1b) Coverage Bias and Exclusion Phone surveys are not optimal. Online surveys work better. Everyone theoretically has access to the internet through home, work, public libraries, phones or even electronic stores that sell computers. Its a question of literacy more so than access to technology. 1c) The Shy Elephant Factor No elephants must be shy. The surveys can be completed online. Your survey results and answers are not published, the answers are anonymous to others. We are not debating an exit poll. The shy elephant is a strawman argument. Its a misrepresentation of my position. 2) Surveys are Efficient Surveys and opinion polls are used in many cases to form policy and guide politicians. Elections are nothing but surveys of the general population as not everybody votes. Its ironic that Con refers to an ITU survey \\\"as of June 2010, 77.3% of the US population has access to, and uses, the internet\\\" to make a case against surveys. Clearly ITU did not speak to everyone in the country, I never heard from them! Everyone has access to the internet and can be polled, but everyone must not be polled in order for the survey to accurately reflect public opinion. The effectiveness of online surveys should be left for another debate. 3) Not a Direct Democracy In cases where surveys can be used, they should be used. The government must have the consent of the governed. 4) Surveys Would Enhance the Right to Petition A survey enhances the Right to Petition for everyone that fills it out. Citizens get to express their opinions through polls and those polls are actually meaningful if the politician is obligated to carry them out. Its a real time right to petition, with action that back up the results. I think Pro is confusing the right to gather signatures for a petition with the right to assemble and to protest. Wisconsin was a case of protesting and assembling at the capital building, not signing a formal petition to present to Governor Walker. Summary: Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress. The techonology is in place and the mathematics behind surveys is well tested, frequently used and sound. There is no reason to exclude the voice of the people in the process when applicable. The US should ensure that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.\",\n \"Compulsory Voting Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet v...\",\n \"Imabench's vote for my debate was completely wrong First off here is the debate we are talking about:http://www.debate.org...\\\" Imabench voted for awesomeness because of his claim that I didn't have a convincing argument\\\"Which is completely legal.....\\\"He completely ignores the fact that my OPPONENT did NOT have an argument at all.\\\"Maybe you were looking at a different debate, here is what I saw. Awesomeness started a debate about why personal electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, and laptop computers should be allowed in a classroom, and proceeded on listing 18 reasons about why they would be beneficial to learning in class, which I have rewritten below. The ones I have underlined were the ones that made the most sense to me1 - They have built in dictionaries and tools to improve grammar2 - They can integrate video to make learning more stimulating3 - Some have access to newspapers4 - They save money on textbooks5 - They save money on fictional books6 - Valuable skills in logic7 - Access to educational websites8 - Interactive and extra curricular learning9 - It improves graduation rates in schools that implement these policies10 - It improves Standardized Test Scores in schools that implement these policies11 - Improves writing skills among students in schools that also implement these technologies12 - Twice as many students meet state standards in courses compared to those students who dont have this access to these devices13 - Encourages diversity14 - More interaction in learning (he counted this twice)15 - Peer feedback16 - Can encourage the flow of ideas between individuals17 - Efficient working where students can access work on different computers18 - Improves learning experience19 - Improves grades in 76% of cases where students have access to these gadgetsThat was the Pro's opening arguments, the Con (DeadBrownApple) responded not by showing that personal devices like phones more often are used for social media and prove to be just distractions, or source any evidence suggesting that the Pro's claims are false, and instead bases his entire argument that electronic devices decrease the quality of education, even though Awesomeness showed four times how it has a dramatic increase on it. DBA then starts by saying that the frontal lobes of these students are not fully developed and thus would decrease their performance, but he does not show why students still show improvement in their grades with these devices despite allegedly having undeveloped frontal lobes. Then after that DBA Immediately quotes that \\\"I do agree with the contention that Electronic Devices administered by the school would help in the quality of education. \\\"Which completely nullifies everything he just argued and reinforces Awesomeness's claim that these electronic devices do help students. He then gives a borderline semantics argument about how since the students dont own the devices and are renting them from the school that these devices all of a sudden cant be used as evidence. After that, DBA drops all other arguments, dismisses the rest of them as inelegible since \\\"they can be learned without electronical devices\\\" and then argues that since they dont need those devices that they shouldnt be allowed, even though the Pro only was arguing that they IMPROVE these things. That was round 2, In Round 3 awesomeness responds to the few arguments that DBA did not drop and argues that these devices could be put away so as they would not be used for cheating. DBA then does the unthinkable and then starts to counter the arguments that he had previously dropped in the final round when Awesomeness cannot argue against is and after DBA had already dropped all of those arguments. On top of that poor conduct DBA even finishes the debate by saying, \\\"You basically argued for the wrong thing and therefore it is automatically void. You have lost this debate. At the very least, I hope you understood why you lost this debate.\\\"And that alone could have cost him conduct, along with arguing dropped points when Pro could not defend his own points because it was the final round========================================================================================================================================================As for my actual vote, I could have easily given the Pro (Awesomeness) arguments and sources and conduct since the Con (DBA) didnt source any statistics and had very poor conduct, particularly at the end of the debate. But instead I simply gave the arguments point to the Pro (Awesomness) since the con dropped over half of the Pro's arguments, then readdressed them at the very end of the debate, and still wasnt very convincing. So my vote was not only justified, but I was giving DBA some mercy by only giving Awesomeness 3 points when I could have justifiably given him 6.\",\n \"Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID ... Voting identification schemes are prone to a high level of errors associated with any bureaucratic system. Even people who bring the correct ID to the polling station may be disenfranchised as a result of misspellings on the part of the government agents who issued the documents, clerical errors over dates, duplications, and problems in the transmission of data between different levels of government. Women who have recently married and so changed their name are also likely to be denied a vote. All these problems are likely to affect poorer citizens with lower levels of literacy and civic engagement, and so are also discriminatory.\",\n \"Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.\",\n \"The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change the outcome of the election I am not arguing that Hillary rigged the election. This is irrelevant. Please be sure to argue for your actual position in round 2, which should be that the recounts will change the results of the election. I don't believe the recounts will change the outcome of the election because in order for Hillary Clinton to win at this point, all three of the aforementioned states will have to come out as Hillary actually winning. The chances that all of the three states will do this seems very small. Perhaps 1 will, but that won't be enough for Hillary to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Donald Trump will still have more than 270 even if one or two of those states is lost. The recent objection is with the voting machines themselves, and some computer experts believe many voting machines in each of the aforementioned states have been hacked. However, while it is true that the voting machines are pretty archaic, for they use a Windows 2000 style of programming, almost none are connected to the internet [1] and cannot be hacked that way. In order for them to be hacked, the person would have to have access to the voting machine or the voting cards and tamper with either. The likelihood that this occurred in all three states in a widespread enough of a manner to effect the election seems slim. It would take a lot of coordination, and people would have had to have had access to either of those two things, which are under strict protection by the states they reside in up until election day. And on election day, poll workers are watching the machines the entire time. Bottom line, is that it seems very unlikely any such hacking occurred on such a large scale, and it doesn't seem likely all three of the states will end up going to Hillary Clinton Source: [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...\",\n \"Direct democracy Introduction is not relevant to the debate. R1) Only voting MAACs often need internet. Other MAACs will only need few minutes on internet, to give their election point. More then 80% Americans reportedly uses internet. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Yes, voting is also done trough internet. Voting MAACs would of course, allow non-voting MAACs to use their PC for few minutes. If someone can not handle the computer, it is good thing if he doesn't vote. I thank my opponent for making an argument for my case. My opponent obviously does not know that access to servers can be limited to specific countries. In other words, it could be hacked only from America. Since it doesn't benefit American people to crush their own system, programmers would only have to deal with several individuals. R2) It makes ruling impossible for individual politicians. That is the whole point of direct democracy. It makes it possible for people to rule. What does my opponent mean by educating whole country? It is absurd. People will just thrust other people who are already educated on each specific issue. There would be no totally new government. Every congressmen who done well would remain in congress. Election points are never automatically reset. If non-voting MAACs are satisfied with how their representative(voting MAAC) is doing, country's politics wouldn't change at all. R3) We are talking specifically about America(which is to be concluded by number of congressmen(535), I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough). I don't see any wars over religion in America. There would be too much voting MAACs to kill them enough to change vote. It is much easier in America's current system to kill few congressmen. - They can possibly be re-elected each time, as long as they are alive. - There are not meant to be any campaigns. Most of the people would give their election point to their friend or family member who knows what he wants. Then that person checks out which voting MAACs are voting for what he wants, and then that person gives that voting MAAC his election points. I hope my opponent now understand proposed system better.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" Thank you for your response. My opponent once again brings up hacking; however what he is speaking of seems conflicting and unsure. forged currency is essentially impossible on the internet and has no relation to this argument. Now my opponent stated \\\"China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited\\\" however, firstly, China is still classified as a third world country, as many parts of China are still below the poverty line. Regardless of this China has grown rapidly in its internet penetration, from 1.78% in 2000 to 46.03% in 2014. My opponent brings up the population of the two nations I mentioned, however my argument wasn't that online voting is common, but it has been successful in other nations.\",\n \"This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however; 1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective. 2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote. Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.\",\n \"Would complicate elections Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3\",\n \"Voter ID's Voter fraud, according to those who argue in favor of Voter IDs, is a major issue with many cases documented. However, this is misconstruing the issue. Voter fraud does indeed happen; however, voter ID would do little to stop it. An exhaustive study that compiled reports of voter fraud found that out of all the elections in America since 2000, there were 10 cases reported of in-person voter fraud, which only Voter ID could prevent (1). The overwhelming plurality of fraud actually involves absentee ballots, which made up 24.2% of cases. Ensuring the integrity of elections is important; however, voter ID is one of the least efficient ways to do this. With regards to the California race, the situation was resolved as the fraud was discovered, suggesting that our government is equipped to handle such cases of fraud without needing IDs. I contest that personal experiences should not be considered in these arguments; they cannot be verified. With regards to the assertion that Voter ID can prevent and deter multiple types of fraud at the polls, Pro is correct. However, all of those types of fraud that Pro mentions are examples of in-person fraud, which is the exact category in which so few cases of fraud occur (2). Notwithstanding any arguments about minority discouragement, Voter ID law is simply unnecessary. The cases that exist that are preventable by Voter ID are few in number, and the controversy over Voter ID detracts from the real issue of absentee fraud. Sources: 1. http://votingrights.news21.com... 2. http://www.brennancenter.org...\",\n \"Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.\",\n \"Mandatory voting does not enhance legitimacy of govt. Even if compulsory voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not improved. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random votes, \\\"just for the fun of it\\\" votes, protest votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?\",\n \"Voting Reform I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future. It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative. The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process. I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing. Good luck BSH 1.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it\\\"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that \\\"if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote\\\". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away \\\"do not deserve to vote\\\". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks \\\"Old people run the country\\\") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...\",\n \"Websites can strengthen democratic institutions. The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries. What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/. 1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011 2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011\",\n \"The Electoral college should remain the method of electing presidents in the United states. quite the Jeffersonian, unequal representation is inherently undemocratic. To bad Jefferson didn't get his way and we now have a senate that unequally represents the public. Must've worked well because the European Union mimicked this formula when calculating seats for their governing houses. Lets see your next argument is that hopefuls try to \\\"beat the system,\\\" aren't they really using the best strategy within the system? I mean if a football player runs a punt-fake, are they really beating the system? aren't they just good strategists? Also hey remember 1982 and 1986, yeah a majority of California voters put Regean in the white house. So your next beef is that you get attention during the primary but not in the final election. Well here in Wisconsin I haven't seen one ad, not one. That's my point, some states influence the primary, some the final election. It makes candidates have to be more versatile and it sends them through more electing \\\"filters,\\\" forcing them to get elected on many issues with a wide spanning support group. In regards to people voting for party, yes that is true, it's called an information shortcut. Voters use them a lot. This requires the parties to maintain a certain image. When that image falters (such as with Bush), the party loses (look at the republican seat losses in 2006). Regardless of how the electoral college system works, voters will use information shortcuts. Oh and ps. the most effective campaign ads are specifically negative ads which make reference to opponents voting records, that seems like pretty valuable information for the voting public. You are certainly right that large states get the shaft on the deal, just like they do in the senate. But let us remember that it is extremely rare that the winner of the electoral college doesn't win the majority (or plurality in some cases). More than changing the result, the electoral college tends to alter the strategy of campaigning. And that is good for a majority of Americans and hurts a few.\",\n \"In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here\\\"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. \\\"Protecting the integrity of our elections\\\" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they\\\"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today\\\"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don\\\"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting\",\n \"The Electoral College is outdated \\\"Yes our votes can influence the E.C., but they make the real choice. When will we really be able to elect our leader?\\\" If one is 18 and a registered voter, he will be allowed to vote in 2016. I am starting to believe that we are discussing the problems with the current electoral college instead of debating whether it is outdated or not. I think we agree on the fact that our votes DO count in the election of a president. We have been electing presidents the same way for the entire existence of our nation. That has not changed. The electoral College was designed as a method to represent the popular vote (which it has accomplished all but 4 times) in a nation that, at the time, had limited communication. The electors represented the states. Today the Electoral College, though not perfect, still represents the people. The election process today has changed with technology and the ability to communicate quicker and easier. The voting results are counted much faster and we know the next elected president. We have many issues with the process like multiple voting or not getting all the absentee ballots counted but those kind of issues would remain even if the Electoral College was removed and we used straight popular vote. The bottom line (for round 2) is this: 1) We do elect our own presidents as a nation through an institute that has effectively worked for more than 230 years. 2) Most of the issues in the election process are not a result of the E.C. being outdated. 3) I have to assume that my opponent should have selected the \\\"Pro\\\" side of the debate?\",\n \"Online voting should replace traditional voting. I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and \\\"confirm\\\" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.\",\n \"Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.\",\n \"Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel\",\n \"Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Because you have conceded that the electoral college system does violate the democratic principals of equal vote weight, I will not cover this argument in my last response. This only leaves the argument that the electoral college system is necessary to prevent corruption. I see no reason to add an intermediary between the voter and their vote being counted. Contrary to your argument, this increases the chance of corruption. This intermediary is just another point of failure that can manipulated, paid or otherwise mislead. Your main argument is that the electoral college can prevent corruption. The electoral college is not a good solution at preventing corruption. What I propose is a better popular voting system that would be significantly stronger at preventing corruption, voter fraud and also deliver equal vote weight. Blockchain technology is decentralized and has no single point of failure. It would be impossible for a voter to vote twice when blockchain technology is associated with solid two factor authentication. This would make the blockchain system significantly more resilient than the electoral college system. Blockchain technology is already being used in voting and is the way of the future. It is very short sighted to think that there is no better way and the current electoral system will remain what works best indefinitely. Other countries are already at various stages of deploying blockchain technology to offer more efficient and secure voting platforms [1]. Has far as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being sociopath or not have nothing to do with the electoral college being a good system. I personally didn't like either candidate and found it very sad that this was the best we could come up with. Regardless of the election outcome and as your candidate Donald Trump stated, \\\"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.\\\" [2] Sources: https://venturebeat.com... [1] https://twitter.com... [2]\",\n \"The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the \\\"regular\\\" First Past The Post system we used today, found the \\\"early predicted winner\\\", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... \\\"Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything.\\\" - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's \\\"Hacking Democracy\\\"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.\",\n \"Online voting should replace traditional voting. It appears that my opponent's only true objection is the possibility of hacking. In the first round, I stated that such a system could be created and regularly updated to prevent intrusion from pirates and hackers, thereby dismantling my opponent's only objection. As such, no new evidence is admissible. The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. My opponent agreed on several points, at least in theory, that this is indeed a good concept. With the sole objection addressed and countered, and concurrence with my ideals, I respectfully request an Affirmative ballot. Thanks.\",\n \"Online voting should replace traditional voting. My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to \\\"nuh-uh\\\". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.\",\n \"New Age Electronic Government As a millennial, am I the only one noticing we haven't been using modern technology (supercomputers, smartphones, and other devices that connect everyone and everything in it) to our advantage? With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. taking up everyones time I think we have been overlooking the potential political advantage these devices could provide for our generation. As a backdrop for my argument I think I can assume WE all believe congress and government in general is becoming more and more corrupt with every election (based off record low approval ratings). However, We The People still continue to vote into office the same people we are unhappy with. Why? Maybe because we feel hopeless, misinformed, and minute compared to these career politicians that continually propagate corruption. I would like to suggest a futuristic and corruption free government with the help and use of atomic supercomputers. Picture logging onto a website so secure it would take a technical complex larger that google to hack (making voters feel more secure). You have the options of opening a local, state, or federal topic form with issues that relate to your local, state, or federal laws and bills. Here you can get consolidated and factual information from private companies that have no reason to be biased for or against an issue. You then have one vote on the issues related to you which will be viewed by a single president and his cabinet that YOU THE VOTER bring into office. He will log onto this website as well and be able to see directly (without interference from hackers because of the supercomputers) what major issues We The People see that needs to be fixed based on an interactive and integrated map of the responses from the participants. To incentivize this website we would give (lets say 1%) tax cuts to those who participate. This would eliminate the need for congress, which might seem extreme to most, but think about it. Getting rid of the two party, corrupt, old, and deadlocked congress we have right now and opening up this office basically to everyone for a vote on every MAJOR issue would end corruption, gridlock, and the two party system. Also, making the voter feel more hopeful, informed, and important in each issue.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement \\\"\\\" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote \\\"\\\" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond \\\"a lot of hacking in internet\\\". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...\",\n \"Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"Online voting should replace traditional voting. Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!\",\n \"The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]\",\n \"Engagement with democracy If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11\",\n \"allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.\",\n \"Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf\",\n \"Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability\",\n \"allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise\",\n \"Efficiency Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11\",\n \"Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":31,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should people become vegetarian?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["The World Should Become Vegetarian\nI sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.","Should People Become Vegetarian\nMany people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren\"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.","THW become Vegetarians\nUnless my opponents has even read my comment at the bottom, I have given a reason to post my rebuttals in this round. For there are no round structures, this will go as followed and I have not dropped any arguments. C5)You\"ll ease the symptoms of menopause. I see in this scenario a benefit from eating food off of the vegetarian diet. However this shows that you don't need to be vegetarian in order to ease menopause. People can still eat food from the vegetarian diet to help them ease it. If we look at this argument in the beginning, it also talks about how \"many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women.\" Note that this does not include men. In this resolution, we talk about America as a whole. However, this argument only applies to woman in general, and we see no benefit to men and kids from this argument. This does not apply to everyone in America. This argument should not be considered in this debate, as my definition specifically states \"America\". C6)You\"ll have more energy This is completely false. They state that \"Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won\"\"t open properly and that your muscles won\"t get enough oxygen.\" Let me ask: Would there be any muscle without protein? No. Sure you can still get them from beans because they are healthier, but we as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. Beans may be healthier short term. However we see the longterm issue as a harm to our future generation. Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy, etc. Note that you can only get B12 from meat, asides from dirt. My opponents talk about fat in your blood stream. What is the impact? Does it kill? They have not shown us any significant impacts, as we showed you that without meat, we have much bigger problems in the long term stances. [1] C7 and C11) You\"ll help reduce pollution and save the planet Giving up meat will not help the solution: in fact it will make it worse. Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed. Note that it is important to remember that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.[2] From this, climate changes can worsen as well as the greenhouse gases that will increase pollution. Therefore, being vegetarian will not help reduce pollution or saving the planet, rather making it worse C8) You\"ll help reduce famine Reading this over, I see no connection towards the fact that vegetarians actually help these causes. Extreme poverty and world hunger are multi-faceted global problems that are caused by government corruption, a lack of proper food distribution, and other reasons that don\"t include eating a meaty diet. C9)You\"ll spare animals Let us look at what Pro is suggesting: he/she is saying how we are killing animals and we are killing too much. What if we stopped killing animals? Pro thinks that it is terrific to stop it. However, consider this: if we stopped killing animals, how many animals would we have on earth? Thats right: I'm talking about overpopulation of animals. Note that animal consumption are not from extinct animals: they are animals who are plenty on earth. But that is not the point: In this argument we weight out human harms and animal harms. Are we equal with animals? Not even close. The ability of a human to breathe underwater is not equal to that of a fish. In both situations, I see that on one side we are killing animals. On the other, we see the longterm harms to humans. Thing is, animals rights are not the same as peoples rights and if we do stop killing animals and start to become vegetarian, the results to humans might but much more significant. Once we stop killing animals, we may start facing long term problems of people who suffer from many contortions due to lack of protein, vitamin B12, etc. C10) You'll save money I believe that becoming vegetarian has no money benefits. Even if we are still omnivores, we can still save money by not buying meat, and buying meat on and off. There are many ways to save money from food standards but I do not see that this is the reason why everyone becoming vegetarians are a necessity. Reconstructions: 1. \"It is a right of choice, but we aren't saying that you HAVE to be a vegetarian, we are just saying that we prefer being a vegetarian. Alsowhy shoiuld you bother someone who is just eating vegetables? It is not against the law either, so you can just leave hem alone and let the citizens have the right to choose what they cane eat.\" I am very confused here. They suddenly say that you don't have to be vegetarian, but they prefer being vegetarian. What is the point of this debate then? You are arguing why we need to have This House (America) to be vegetarian as it says on the resolution? They have basically agreed to us that the citizens have the right to choose what they can eat. That is exactly what we are saying in this argument! Their side basically notions that making America become vegetarian means they are forcing their citizens. 2.As I said, if they eat they meat, it is their choice because they wouldn't get in jail. it is their choice and they can follow it or reject. As I said in my first rebuttal, we just prefer, it and it is their right to want to eat meat or just be a vegetarian. Yes, exactly. It is their right. That is why I am on con. In my argument, I am just saying that it is very hard to ensue such a law, and therefore should not be put into change of our status quo. 3. Yes, this is true, but then when we eat beans, it is healthier for us. Meat contains a lot of fat and bad chemicals for you. Beans may be healthier, but in what stance? As I explained in my argument, beans (which is referred as plants because they grow from plants) do not have the same vegetables and PLANTS do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Thus, beans are ineffective to protein and that we must need meat in order to survive. Without the enough amino acid profile, we are looking towards struggles to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffering. Our skin goes unhealthy. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. On a scale, without becoming vegetarian we have much more benefits, as becoming one has more harms. Either way, they have not refuted our Vitamin B12 argument, assuming they have no sayings on this. Lets use some impact calculus: Severity. Side Pro is looking at the fact that it is damaging our environment, health and people. However, these are not as severe as we think that are. Side con wins for this because our impacts are severe, as it hurts the peoples health's especially. Probability: It is not likely to enforce rules to make America vegetarian. It is simply not likely to ensue that everyone does not eat meat Timeframe: They only talk about short term impacts but our impacts last longterm. They have not reconstructed their case, nor refuted properly, whereas I have reconstructed, refuted and kept on defending my side properly. In a way, it seems like they have conceded. Good debate with side pro Vote Con! 1) http://www.mnn.com... 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...","Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian.\nWhile your points are completely valid you are forgetting one major fact, The overpopulation of animals: Specific species of animals, such as cows need to be killed off to keep the population at a healthy level. If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat. You state 25% of the earth is used for grazing, and argue that is too much? Imagine if people were vegetarians,stopped eating grazing animals, and the animals were set free. This would cause a huge amount of the grass and healthy lands such as the rain forest to be torn down due to uncontrolled species. It is much less space consuming to have a tightly packed group of animals then a spaced out one. As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians. Finally Humans are part of the environment too, many vegetarians eat LESS healthy then non-vegetarians. \"And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they\"re unlikely to reap many health benefits \" after all, there\"s no meat in ice cream, potato chips, or fudge brownies! It\"s certainly possible to be a vegetarian and still consume large quantities of high-fat, high-sugar empty calories. Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12. Athletes, children and pregnant females are particularly at risk as their nutrient needs are especially high. Vegans (who eat no animal products of any type) especially need to supplement their vitamin B12 intake. Poor meal-planning, illness, stress and the excessive use of supplements can also cause problems. It's therefore wise to seek professional advice on your dietary needs before making the switch to vegetarianism.\" ~Calorie King Sources: http://www.vegetariantimes.com... http://www.calorieking.com...","Vegetarianism\nWhen it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters' minds is, \"What do you eat?\" The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and \"Fib Ribs\" to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more. Going vegetarian has never been easier, and we're here to help! From our fantastic recipes and list of favorite products and favorite vegetarian cookbooks to our free vegetarian starter kit and online shopping guide, PETA has all the information you need to adopt a healthy and humane vegetarian diet! Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food. Raising animals on factory farms is cruel and ecologically devastating. Eating animals is bad for our health, leading directly to many diseases and illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. In response to animal welfare, health, and ecological concerns, compassionate people everywhere are adopting a vegetarian diet. For Animals Animals on factory farms are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines. Chickens have their sensitive beaks seared off with a hot blade, and male cattle and pigs are castrated without any painkillers. All farmed chickens, turkeys, and pigs spend their brief lives in dark and crowded warehouses, many of them so cramped that they can't even turn around or spread a single wing. They are mired in their own waste, and the stench of ammonia fills the air. Animals raised for food are bred and drugged to grow as large as possible as quickly as possible—many are so heavy that they become crippled under their own weight and die within inches of their water supply. Animals on factory farms do not see the sun or get a breath of fresh air until they are prodded and crammed onto trucks for a nightmarish ride to the slaughterhouse, often through weather extremes and always without food or water. Many die during transport, and others are too sick or weak to walk off the truck after they reach the slaughterhouse. The animals who survive this hellish ordeal are hung upside-down and their throats are slit, often while they're completely conscious. Many are still alive while they are skinned, hacked into pieces, or scalded in the defeathering tanks. Learn more about the factory-farming industry. By switching to a vegetarian diet, you can save more than 100 animals a year from this misery. One suggestion: If you plan to make the transition to a vegetarian diet gradually, the most important foods to cut out of your diet first are bird flesh and eggs. While many people think that \"red meat\" and dairy products should be the first to go, this isn't the case. By cutting bird flesh from your diet, you'll save many more animals. Because chickens are so small, the average meat-eater is responsible for the deaths of many more chickens than cows. Plus, chickens and turkeys exploited by the meat and egg industries are the most abused animals commonly used for food. For Your Health Some of the leading killers in America today, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and strokes, are directly linked to meat-based diets. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America today, and it is caused by the build-up of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products in our arteries. The only two doctors in human history who have successfully reversed heart disease have included an exclusively vegetarian diet as a part of their programs. The average vegan cholesterol level is 133 (compared to 210 for meat-eaters); there are no documented cases of heart attacks in individuals with cholesterol under 150. Other health problems tied to clogged arteries, like poor circulation and atherosclerotic strokes, can be virtually eliminated with a vegan diet. Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning. Learn more about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. For the Environment America's meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country's meat addiction is wrecking the earth. Read more about factory farming and the environment. http://goveg.com...","Vegetarianism\nIt is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products.","Humans should be vegetarians.\nHumans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.","Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products\nWhy? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating \"well-planned diets,\" not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.","Everyone should become a vegetarian\nI don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.","Eating meat is good for your health\nMy opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. \"Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.\" [2]\"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women.\" [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, \"Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats.\" In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? \"Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked.\" [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies.\"Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk.\" [5] \"In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb.\" [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case.\"The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects.\" [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: \"When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren’t much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine).\" [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that \"more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products.\" This is no problem. \"Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor.\" [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com...","Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.\nOutline I. Intro II. Why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. III. Rebuttal of Con IV. Links I. Intro First, to reiterate the resolution. Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Con makes the statement below which confuses who is Pro and who is Con. Pro is the person that wants meat, eggs, and dairy to be banned worldwide. Con is the person who rejects the resolution and contends for no change to take place. \"Dear judges, if you are looking to be healthy and happy, vote pro. If you do NOT wish to suffer of health diseases. Vote pro. If you want to stay you. Vote pro. Thank you.\" Con has an identity crisis. I am Pro and Con is Con. II. Why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. Meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide because they are unhealthy to consume, production causes excessive environmental damage, production causes animal cruelty, and production agitates world hunger. Claim 1: Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy to consume. Warrant 1: These products contain excess amounts of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. While lacking antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Eating animal products displaces healthy food. Impact: Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy and displace healthy food and should be banned. Claim 2: Production of animal products causes excessive environmental damage. Warrant 2: \"Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows.\"[5]. \"The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. \"[6]. Impact 2: Production of meat, eggs, and dairy causes excessive environmental damage and should be banned. Claim 3: production causes animal cruelty Warrant 3: \"At 18 months of age, a fraction of a chicken's life span, these hens were considered spent, unable to produce eggs at a fast enough rate, and they were scheduled for slaughter. All 100 of them bore the physical and psychological scars of an entire young life spent in the crowded confines of a sunless, windowless, ammonia-filled cement shed. Even after weeks of sanctuary life, many are still in a state of constant terror, still panicking at the drop of a leaf, still cowering at the smallest noise, as if hit by a physical blow to the body. \" [7]. Impact 3: If free range chickens are treated this way, cage-free and battery cage chickens must suffer even more. Deliberately and intentionally causing animal suffering is immoral. Claim 4: production agitates world hunger Warrant 4: \"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish.\" [8]. \"The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food. \" [9] \"It\"s increasingly evident, however, that a part-time vegan diet \" one that emphasizes minimally processed plant food at the expense of everything else \" is the direction that will do the most to benefit human health, increase animal welfare and reduce environmental impact.\" [10] Impact 4: It takes at least twice as much pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat as opposed to eating the grain directly. This grain fed to livestock could be fed to hungry humans thus mitigating world hunger. The same is true of dairy as seen in link [9]. Meat, dairy, and egg production agitate world hunger and should be banned worldwide. Its unjust for 1st world countries to continue to consume large quantities of animal products. Pro has now established why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned. Now why not just ban these animal products in Rhode Island? Why the entire world? The environment and world hunger are global problems. It would be unjust to ban these products in one nation or state and instead should be banned worldwide. III. Rebuttal of Con \"My first assertion is that meat, eggs and dairy are required to maintain a healthy diet. What kind of diet if without meat, eggs and dairy? A diet that will cause life long health and eating problems. Without eggs, meat and dairy, people will suffer due to mal nutrition. \" Con This would be an effective argument is Con provided evidence to back up this claim. In fact Con's first link supports Pro's side. \"Fruit are whole foods, with plenty of fiber, nutrients and antioxidants. It is very difficult to overeat fructose if you\"re only getting it from whole fruit.\" [11]. \"A 100 gram portion (3.5 ounces) of raw ground beef contains large amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and plenty of other vitamins and minerals (5).\" Con It seems Con ran out of characters and did not post links to all sources used by Con. Pro contends its unfair for Con not to link the original source. Pro needs to see the quotes in their original context. \"Vitamin B12 is particularly important because it can not be gotten in ANY amount from plants. Studies show that out of vegans who don\"t supplement with B12, 92% are deficient in this critical nutrient (6).\" Con B12 comes from bacteria. Raw organic fruits and vegetables are covered in bacteria. Since B12 comes from bacteria and not animals nor plants, the claim that B12 cannot be gotten in any amounts from animals nor plants is accurate but misleading. Since, bacteria are found just about everywhere on the planet Earth. Bacteria producing b-12 can be found in the human gut. \"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives\" [12]. \"Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria\" [13]. \"B12 From Fruits And Vegetables All fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however. Why? Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in.\" [14]. B-12 can be gained from bacteria in the soil and human gut as well as supplements. As for 92% being deficient in b-12, all that means is that a little extra care is needed when on a vegan diet. Note, the 92% didn't supplement. \"Unprocessed meat is also loaded with healthy fats, but meat from grass-fed animals contains up to 5 times as much Omega-3 as meat from grain-fed animals\" Con Looking at the amount of omega-3's from grass-fed cows there are insignificant amounts. Pro seriously doubts that unprocessed meats are loaded with healthy fats. No outside link backing this claim up is supplied by Con. \"Milk and dairy products contain many nutrients and provide a quick and easy way of supplying these nutrients to the diet within relatively few calories. \" Con Milk is a dairy product, this statement is redundant. Dairy products are high in fat, fat contains 9 calories per gram. Dairy products are some of the highest fat and calorie per pound products available. \"Vegetarians are deficient in creatine, leading to reduced physical and mental performance \" Con Con does not supply proof for these claims. Pro contends that creatine is not to be concerned with. \"Carnosine is only found in animal foods\" Con Con has picked a term that hardly anyone has heard of and without proof, now claims that this nutrient is important. Both creatine and carsosine are proteins, and a vegan can receive enough protein. \"\"DHA and EPA are the active forms of Omega-3 in the human body and found primarily in animal foods. The body is inefficient at converting ALA (the plant form of Omega-3) to the active forms\" Con Fish receive their DHA and EPA omega-3s from eating seaweed and microalgae. A vegan can eat seaweed and microalgae for nourishment. \"Omega-3 fatty acids for nutrition and medicine: considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA.\"[15]. Pro is running out of characters and cannot address every point Con makes. Con goes on to state all the minerals and vitamins in animal products. Yes, there is vitamins and minerals in these foods, but so is there in plant foods. Kale and collards are two great examples. Con then goes onto economics and feasibility. Meat is a humongous industry. Yet, sooner or later morals take precedence over the wallet. Global climate change is a dire threat. If nothing else, self-survival demands that meat, eggs, and dairy to be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. Thank you. Pro looks forward to the next round of debate. IV. Links 5. http://wwf.panda.org... 6. http://www.greenpeace.org... 7. http://www.humanemyth.org... 8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 9. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 10. http://www.nytimes.com... 11. http://authoritynutrition.com... 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13 .http://www.nature.com... 14. http://www.raw-food-health.net... 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...","The World Should Become Vegetarian\nPeople crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.","Eating meat is healthy.\nImmorality of eating meat is incoherent to this debate, as we are arguing the health of eating meat. I will need to see sources for your census to believe its legitimacy. My opponent's fallacy that eating less meat will cure world hunger. This does not apply to the health of eating meat, nor can it be considered remotely true. I decided to use the mayoclinic as a source to (below) Here is what they said about meat: \"Meat and poultry can be valuable sources of protein and other important nutrients\" [1] Con has not refuted the arguments of the health benefits that meat possess, which I have shown in Round 1. The nutrients and vitamins (Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more) in meat show the benefits to ones health. I have refuted any possible correlation with heart disease, and will refute any arguments regarding mortality, if proper sources are given to prove those statistics. http://www.mayoclinic.org...","The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.\nWe are not omnivores. Humans are most often described as \"omnivores.\" This classification is based on the \"observation\" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, \"observation\" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most \"natural\" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly \"behavioral\" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods","should cormorant birds be slaughtered\nYeah, They should their just a bunch of Woutarded $hIt eating birds. Also, My Jewish god told me animal lives don't mean anything, Therefore animals lives don't matter Woutard.","Vegetarianism is good for your health\nSorry I thought \"vegan\" was short form of \"vegetarian\". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. \"Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with.\" Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. \"Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans.\" Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.","Everyone should be vegetarian.\nI think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?","You don’t have to be vegetarian to be an avid environmentalist.\nGood examples of environmentalist meat-eaters include Theodore Roosevelt and Native American Indians. These meat-eating-environmentalists appreciate the source of their meat, the life-form that was behind it, and acted to uphold a sustainable environmental balance. As long as you live up to these principles, there is no contradiction between eating meat and being an environmentalist.","Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead\n(1) Since my rebuttals will be (partly) predicated on Pro's arguments being irrelevant to the resolution, I suppose it would be pertinent to explain exactly what the resolution means. Let's begin with \"Vegans practicing on moral principle\". This essentially means that the debate will be made from the moral perspective of veganism. Our focus will necessarily take into account the moral foundations of vegan practice. Next we have \"should\". We are arguing what vegans should do based on the \"moral principle\" expressed in the first part of the resolution. Lastly is, \"become Freegan instead\". This means that, given the 'moral principle' (yet to be defined) which vegans operate under, they should drop veganism to practice freeganism. Pro instead argues that freeganism is prima facie morally superior (without defining or defending the moral perspective which informs this argument). This is irrelevant to the resolution as Pro is actually tasked with showing why the moral principles behind veganism support freeganism as morally superior. Given that vegan principles are expressly stated as supporting the abandonment of animal suffering, it seems at least implausible that freeganism could be shown to be born out of veganist principle. Pro has failed to follow the resolution, choosing instead to argue (without a coherent moral foundation) why Freeganism is a better choice regardless of the unique moral sensibilities of veganism.Note: This is not a semantical argument, but a necessary elucidation of what the resolution means in light of an argument which appears to ignore its necessary implications.(2) Even if we ignore the first point of criticism, it cannot be ignored that Pro has decided to offer points based off of a complete lack of moral justification. That is, even if one could coherently maintain that this debate is over which practice is prima facie morally superior, Pro would have failed in that he fails to offer a compelling moral justification for eating only that which is wasted. It's not as if it's obvious why curtailing animal suffering is morally inferior to consuming waste after all. In fact, given that pain is inextricably linked to our own moral sensibilities [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] it seems rather obvious why veganism would be morally superior to freeganism (as opposed to the other way around). Pro's arguments are maintained only by presuming at the outset that stopping waste is not only morally right, but morally superior to allaying the suffering of animals. I do not intend to concede either of these principles. Therefore the onus is on Pro to argue in favor of them.(3) But since the BoP is to be shared, I will also elect to provide an argument for the moral superiority of veganism over freeganism. As stated previously, it seems prima facie reasonable that allaying the suffering of conscious creatures is morally superior to reducing waste. But seeing as this is essentially a philosophical debate, mere prima facie reasonableness will not do. Instead I will draw on Peter Singer's preference utilitarian argument against the inflicting of unnecessary suffering against conscious creatures capable of feeling pain. Other standards of moral worth such as inclusion in the human species or cognitive ability are either arbitrary (the former) or non-universal in humans (the latter) which would put the severely, mentally handicapped at the same moral worth as animals. Suffering appears to be the best measure of moral worth both because of our own evolutionary history (see above) and given the inconsistencies which arise given other standards of moral worth. A vegan diet attempts to allay animal suffering by refusing to lend support practices which inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Further credence is lent to the position by virtue of the fact that veganism does not present serious health risks that can't be allayed by nutritional supplements [http://ajcn.nutrition.org...].","Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.\nAs you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming \"picky-eaters\". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the \"meat\" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic \"epidemics\", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.","Should People Become Vegetarian\nMany people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.","Ben Should Become a Vegetarian\nBen should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: \"The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.\"Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. \"Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers.\"I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier.\"The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.\"Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on \"hirs and his\". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!","Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral\nI apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source \"...\" this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment \"Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways.\" can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote \"The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers.\" [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote \"It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. \" This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 \"Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced.\" [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes \"Blue tongue disease\", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state \"Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all.\" Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes \"Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis.\" Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section \"Toward Rational Meat Eating\" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly \"Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction.\" \"Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits.\" So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con \"Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues.\" Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote \"Environmental Protection Agency \" calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer\"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables.\" [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument \"However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals.\" It\"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 \"\" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans.\" But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org...","A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.\nA vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It\"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one\"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.","Vegan Diets are Healthier\n1. Well-Planned Diets are to be Compared The resolution is \"Resolved: Well planned vegan diets are healthier than their meat-based counterparts.\" The counterpart to a well-planned vegan diet is a well planned meat-based diet. I take a \"meat-based diet\" to be any diet that includes meat on a regular basis. For example, if a vegan diet is used with some of the protein from beans replaced with protein from fish, then Pro must prove that the departure from strict vegetarianism results in poorer health. I contend that any diet, vegan or non-vegan. that provides all of the nutrients needed, and at the same time avoids excessive amount of unhealthy nutrients will produce the same nutrition-based health. Pro's initial argument, I claim, amounts to saying that a well-planned vegan diet is less healthy than a poorly planned diet with meat. Vegans are extraordinarily health-conscious compared to the average. Why else would a person eschew a great variety of tasty foods in favor of a restricted diet? Okay, sometimes people are vegetarians for religious reasons, but they are nonetheless diet-conscious -- they are not casually consuming whatever tastes good. It should not be surprising that any person who is fanatical about diet or health will end up with better health than one who is not., all other things equal. Comparing the average vegan with the average non-vegan does not support the resolution, since the average non-vegan is not adhering to the \"well-planned diet\" requirement. For example, the longest-lived population in the world are the residents of Okinawa. They do not eat a vegan diet, They eat a balanced diet that includes animal proteins in reasonable quantities along with vegetables. \"Meat, poultry, and eggs account for just 3% of the diet, fish about 11%.\" http://www.wellnessletter.com... Okinawans are not typical non-vegans, but they are a good approximation having the \"well-planned\" non-vegan diet. Their health is better than most vegetarian societies. 2. Cholesterol is Fine in Moderation Pro points to cholesterol as a critical dangerous component of meat. Cholesterol is one of those things necessary for health, but harmful in excess. In is something like vitamin D in that the body can manufacture it or it can be obtained from food. Too little Vitamin D causes a deficiency disease, but too much is extremely toxic. A vegetarian can get too much cholesterol from diet. \"... coconut oil may be cholesterol free, but is highly saturated and more dangerous than seafood, as it causes the liver to produce more harmful cholesterol. Saturated fat also raises triglyceride levels and thickens the blood. ... Seafood, on the other hand, contains cholesterol, but also the protective polyunsaturated fats that cause the liver to produce less harmful cholesterol and more protective HDL cholesterol. ... That's why, rather than worry about high cholesterol foods, you should pay attention to foods high in saturated fats.\" http://www.all-about-lowering-cholesterol.com... A well-planned vegan diet will avoid that problem, but so will a well-planned non-vegan diet, both by avoiding saturated fats. 3. Obesity is From Calories, not Meat Obesity causes health risks. However, it is certainly the case that some vegans are obese and many non-vegans are not obese. For example, a study showed \"Roman gladiators were overweight vegetarians and not the muscle-bound men portrayed by actors\" http://www.abc.net.au... All that matters is how many calories the person consumes, not whether the calories are plant or animal. \"Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive dietary calories, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility, '\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Again, it is reasonable that vegans are obese than average people, because vegans are diet conscious, vegetables have lower energy density than meat, and to many people meat tastes better. However, a well-planned non-vegan diet also has the proper amount of calories. 4. Statistics Show No Vegetarian Advantage If there were, as Pro claims, some inherent health problem with non-vegan diets, than vegans should have a consistent health advantage. Even though vegans tend to be health conscious, the statistics show no advantage. A metastudy compiles the data from many studies into one. \"The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the \"lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Other studies of certain selected vegetarian populations show some marginal advantage in life expectancy, but it seems that non-diet factors are responsible, Other factors are not-smoking, higher income and lower stress levels. A National Geographic Study http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com... gives a sense of the factors. Those long-lived Okinawans have low stress and void smoking along with a fish-centric diet. 5. Science Favors a Balanced Diet The National Institutes of Health recommends a balanced diet that includes meat, fish, and dairy. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee states: \"...consume a diet rich in vegetables and fruits; choose whole-grain, high-fiber foods; consume fish, especially oily fish, at least twice a week; limit intake of saturated fat to 7% of energy, trans fat to1% of energy, and cholesterol to 300 mg/day by choosing lean meats and vegetable alternatives, fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1% fat) dairy products and minimize intake of partially hydrogenated fats; minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars; choose and prepare foods with little or no salt;\" http://circ.ahajournals.org... It might be argued that vegan diets are healthier because it's easier for the average person to make a well-planned diet. It's easier in some ways, because it's likely that vegans will get more fiber and less saturated fat without much extra effort. However, the disadvantages are more than an offset. Vitamin B12 is in virtually all meat, but \" vegans will lack B12 unless they consume B12-containing dietary supplements or B12-fortified foods.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Deficiency of B12 produces pernicious anemia, which s fatal if untreated. \"Vegetarians often have normal hemoglobin, but low iron stores (ferritin) in liver, muscles and bone marrow. Iron absorption is improved by including Vitamin C (75 mg per meal or about 6 oz orange juice) along with an iron supplement (as much as 50 mg per day) and high iron foods.\" http://www.dietitian.com... Those who eat little red meat can also have iron deficiency, but the body naturally cravings for red meat when iron is low, so the problem is more easily recognized. \"For the most part, vegetarians get adequate protein if they eat a balanced vegetarian diet. In fact a healthy vegetarian diet usually exceeds protein requirements. ... The best way to make sure you're getting enough nutrients , including protein, is to keep track of the foods you eat on a daily basis.\" http://vegetarian.lovetoknow.com... In sum, vegan diets are no healthier than meat-based diets. Both must be \"well-planned.\"","THW believes that eating meat is better than eating vegetables\nHumans are omnivores, and this is not up to debate. Our body needs an equal amount of products from the animal kingdom as well as from the plant kingdom. Separation isn't a viable option for the body as it has evolved over several million years to consume, digest and build itself around a diverse and varied menu that consisted not only of hunted meat but berries, herbs and plants. Saying that eating vegetables is better than eating meat is just as unorthodox as saying that eating meat is better than vegetables. But since no things can truly be equal one must have the slight advantage over the other. To truly find which kingdom is better we must observe what would happen if someone would ONLY eat a product of the other kingdom. If I'd refuse to eat anything but meat would I be better put than someone that eats only vegetables? If we start with vegetarians we can quickly find numerous sources on both pro's and cons of being a vegetarian. A quick look around the internet shows us numerous sites, pages, articles and magazine covers marvelling the benefits of knocking our furry little friends from the dinner table. Some of the benefits include: Having higher quantities of the following nutrients:-Fiber-Antioxidants-Vitamin C-Vitamin E-Potassium-Magnesium Vegetarians are also less likely to develop heart diseases, have a much lower blood pressure, don't have the same amount of cholesterol in their blood and some studies have pointed towards a reduce chance of cancer. They also are more likely to exercise, drink moderately and refrain from smoking as compared to the general public. However, a meat free diet isn't as perfect as it seems; as vegetarians have some problems of their own. Some of the side effects of vegetarianism include:Lower amounts of -Calories,-Saturated Fats,-Cholestrorol,-Omega-3,-EOA,-DHA,-Iron,-Zinc-Vitamin B-12. Which are abundant in meat products and fish. If they also refrain from milk and egg products they also experience a shortage in Vitamins B-2, D and Calcium. The lack of Calcium puts vegans at a substantial risk when it comes to bone diseases and bone fractures. The low cholesterol level is also a questionable trait, because even if it decreases the chance of heart failures it does seem to increase the risk of an early mortality. But remember that most researches on vegetarians seem to disagree. Some say that it solves all our problems and others state quite to opposite. This is in part because our diet isn't the only thing that makes use healthy, and so result may change person to person. These shortages of certain vitamins and minerals must be fought either with meat eating, eating an excess amount of plants that include some of the minerals you need (which in some cases require you to eat an unhealthy amount) or replace them with synthetic nutrients, pills or find other natural sources that may or may not be readily available to you where ever you happen to live.1-2 Now, let's look at the typical meatatarian. It isn't a commonly used term and since it is rather rare to only eat meat and excluding other food sources finding reliable sources proves to be a bit difficult. Eventually the following results where found: It is perfectly possible to live solely on meat, but you can't cherry pick, you eat everything on the animal and if you are dealing with red meat, eat it raw. I present the case of the Inuit diet. Inuit, or informally an Eskimo, are native dwellers of the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland and Alaska. In the frozen wastelands that the icecap is getting a good share of vegetables and fruits can be a bit of a challenge. In practice, it is almost impossible in lands where you may expect sub-zero temperatures all year long. So how do they cope? Meat. And a lot of it. They primarily eat the following:seal, walrus, whale, caribou, polar bear, muskoxen, birds and their eggs and fish. The few plants that do grow in the snow are gathered and eaten as well, but in comparison to the amount of meat Inuit eat it doesn't seem all too abundant.And how does this meat menu affect their health? Any illnesses swimming amongst the seals? au contraire, the tribes that walk around the ice are in superb health. Inuit high-fat dinner plate helps in keeping the body warm. It counters against protein poisoning and because almost all of the fat is so called 'good' fat it does not post the same risk as the typical western high-fat diet. They feel full of energy, the live long and leading lives and in the harsh winters the body is well insulated and fit for all occasions.3 But maybe cherry picking the high fat Inuit diet doesn't really support my case well enough in the western world: we need a more fitting diet for our situation. What about missing nutrients? Won't an all meat diet cause Scurvy? Cooked meat isn't rich in vitamin C after all. What other minerals are we missing? Well, Truth to be told we aren't missing any of them if we know what we are eating. Meat is filled to the brim with B-12, Omega-3, Protein, Niacin, B-6, Iron, Zinc, Phosphorus, Selenium, some amounts of vitamin D along with a handful of other nutrients4. For fibers you can eat the tissues that surround the bones, connect limbs together and various parts of muscles. Calsium if you don't want the milk is also abundant in certain parts of the corpse, albeit most of it is collected in the bones. You can grind them down and add to your meal but I'd recommend just drinking a glass of milk and a slice of cheese instead. That just leaves vitamin C. I already touched the subject that cooked meat contains no vitmin C, so how would the meat menu counter that? Simple, he skips the cooking part. The organs of animals are often rich in vitamin C and if eaten raw are a perfect source for that scurvy countering vitamin. It is a bit disgusting eating raw meat at first, but as with all foods you'll adapt eventually. For Derek Nance it took around a week or two. Derek, due to health issues, cannot eat anything but raw meat5. And he is perfectly fine, fit and healthy. He eats raw meat, meat organs, lamb, beef, not pigs due to hormone and bacterial risks and even a few rotten chunks of meat. 5 years in and he is healthier than he has ever been, much healthier than he was when he ate a mixure of meat and veggies, fish and fruits and cooked cuisine. Readers of the debate, you don't need to go to extremes. You should in all situations try to keep a diverse and varied cuisine in your home using both meat and plant products. But if you find yourself at a crossroad and have to choose either way you'll find that meat in itself provides you with a much healthier stand than eating fruits and veggies. With one you can live of the corpse of the lamb alone if you need to, but you'll always need something else on the side when going green. Save an innocent carrot, eat meat. 1)http://www.bu.edu...2)http://www.mnn.com...3) http://en.wikipedia.org...4) http://ro.uow.edu.au...5) http://www.vice.com...","Everyone oughta be vegan.\nWhile animal cruelty is a serious issue, for the most part it's not really the fault of farms. There have been multiple laws passed in order to prevent animal cruelty, and by simply following these laws and adding newer ones, this will help to protect those fluffy animals. For the most part, it's not even things such as bears and rabbits that are killed. They're usually cows and other animals that are used for the sake of human consumption. Animals do deserve better respect, but meat is good too","THW become Vegetarians\nThanks for your last round. I will say my argumentsone last time then I wil say why I won and finish the debate. 1. You’ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce——another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You’ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet—high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates——is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You’ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. ”People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.” 4.You’ll build strong bones. When there isn’’t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended——through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You’ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You’ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy——energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won’’t open properly and that your muscles won’’t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You’ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You’ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You’ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can’’t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law——in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You’ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans’’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a “greener” car in the fight against climate change. I should win this debate because I made strong arguments saying that it is good for you and also it is healty. I rebutted all of Con's Points saying that you can still have protein without eating meat.Therefore, I hope everyone votes for Pro!!!"],"string":"[\n \"The World Should Become Vegetarian\\nI sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.\",\n \"Should People Become Vegetarian\\nMany people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren\\\"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.\",\n \"THW become Vegetarians\\nUnless my opponents has even read my comment at the bottom, I have given a reason to post my rebuttals in this round. For there are no round structures, this will go as followed and I have not dropped any arguments. C5)You\\\"ll ease the symptoms of menopause. I see in this scenario a benefit from eating food off of the vegetarian diet. However this shows that you don't need to be vegetarian in order to ease menopause. People can still eat food from the vegetarian diet to help them ease it. If we look at this argument in the beginning, it also talks about how \\\"many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women.\\\" Note that this does not include men. In this resolution, we talk about America as a whole. However, this argument only applies to woman in general, and we see no benefit to men and kids from this argument. This does not apply to everyone in America. This argument should not be considered in this debate, as my definition specifically states \\\"America\\\". C6)You\\\"ll have more energy This is completely false. They state that \\\"Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won\\\"\\\"t open properly and that your muscles won\\\"t get enough oxygen.\\\" Let me ask: Would there be any muscle without protein? No. Sure you can still get them from beans because they are healthier, but we as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. Beans may be healthier short term. However we see the longterm issue as a harm to our future generation. Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy, etc. Note that you can only get B12 from meat, asides from dirt. My opponents talk about fat in your blood stream. What is the impact? Does it kill? They have not shown us any significant impacts, as we showed you that without meat, we have much bigger problems in the long term stances. [1] C7 and C11) You\\\"ll help reduce pollution and save the planet Giving up meat will not help the solution: in fact it will make it worse. Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed. Note that it is important to remember that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.[2] From this, climate changes can worsen as well as the greenhouse gases that will increase pollution. Therefore, being vegetarian will not help reduce pollution or saving the planet, rather making it worse C8) You\\\"ll help reduce famine Reading this over, I see no connection towards the fact that vegetarians actually help these causes. Extreme poverty and world hunger are multi-faceted global problems that are caused by government corruption, a lack of proper food distribution, and other reasons that don\\\"t include eating a meaty diet. C9)You\\\"ll spare animals Let us look at what Pro is suggesting: he/she is saying how we are killing animals and we are killing too much. What if we stopped killing animals? Pro thinks that it is terrific to stop it. However, consider this: if we stopped killing animals, how many animals would we have on earth? Thats right: I'm talking about overpopulation of animals. Note that animal consumption are not from extinct animals: they are animals who are plenty on earth. But that is not the point: In this argument we weight out human harms and animal harms. Are we equal with animals? Not even close. The ability of a human to breathe underwater is not equal to that of a fish. In both situations, I see that on one side we are killing animals. On the other, we see the longterm harms to humans. Thing is, animals rights are not the same as peoples rights and if we do stop killing animals and start to become vegetarian, the results to humans might but much more significant. Once we stop killing animals, we may start facing long term problems of people who suffer from many contortions due to lack of protein, vitamin B12, etc. C10) You'll save money I believe that becoming vegetarian has no money benefits. Even if we are still omnivores, we can still save money by not buying meat, and buying meat on and off. There are many ways to save money from food standards but I do not see that this is the reason why everyone becoming vegetarians are a necessity. Reconstructions: 1. \\\"It is a right of choice, but we aren't saying that you HAVE to be a vegetarian, we are just saying that we prefer being a vegetarian. Alsowhy shoiuld you bother someone who is just eating vegetables? It is not against the law either, so you can just leave hem alone and let the citizens have the right to choose what they cane eat.\\\" I am very confused here. They suddenly say that you don't have to be vegetarian, but they prefer being vegetarian. What is the point of this debate then? You are arguing why we need to have This House (America) to be vegetarian as it says on the resolution? They have basically agreed to us that the citizens have the right to choose what they can eat. That is exactly what we are saying in this argument! Their side basically notions that making America become vegetarian means they are forcing their citizens. 2.As I said, if they eat they meat, it is their choice because they wouldn't get in jail. it is their choice and they can follow it or reject. As I said in my first rebuttal, we just prefer, it and it is their right to want to eat meat or just be a vegetarian. Yes, exactly. It is their right. That is why I am on con. In my argument, I am just saying that it is very hard to ensue such a law, and therefore should not be put into change of our status quo. 3. Yes, this is true, but then when we eat beans, it is healthier for us. Meat contains a lot of fat and bad chemicals for you. Beans may be healthier, but in what stance? As I explained in my argument, beans (which is referred as plants because they grow from plants) do not have the same vegetables and PLANTS do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Thus, beans are ineffective to protein and that we must need meat in order to survive. Without the enough amino acid profile, we are looking towards struggles to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffering. Our skin goes unhealthy. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. On a scale, without becoming vegetarian we have much more benefits, as becoming one has more harms. Either way, they have not refuted our Vitamin B12 argument, assuming they have no sayings on this. Lets use some impact calculus: Severity. Side Pro is looking at the fact that it is damaging our environment, health and people. However, these are not as severe as we think that are. Side con wins for this because our impacts are severe, as it hurts the peoples health's especially. Probability: It is not likely to enforce rules to make America vegetarian. It is simply not likely to ensue that everyone does not eat meat Timeframe: They only talk about short term impacts but our impacts last longterm. They have not reconstructed their case, nor refuted properly, whereas I have reconstructed, refuted and kept on defending my side properly. In a way, it seems like they have conceded. Good debate with side pro Vote Con! 1) http://www.mnn.com... 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...\",\n \"Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian.\\nWhile your points are completely valid you are forgetting one major fact, The overpopulation of animals: Specific species of animals, such as cows need to be killed off to keep the population at a healthy level. If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat. You state 25% of the earth is used for grazing, and argue that is too much? Imagine if people were vegetarians,stopped eating grazing animals, and the animals were set free. This would cause a huge amount of the grass and healthy lands such as the rain forest to be torn down due to uncontrolled species. It is much less space consuming to have a tightly packed group of animals then a spaced out one. As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians. Finally Humans are part of the environment too, many vegetarians eat LESS healthy then non-vegetarians. \\\"And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they\\\"re unlikely to reap many health benefits \\\" after all, there\\\"s no meat in ice cream, potato chips, or fudge brownies! It\\\"s certainly possible to be a vegetarian and still consume large quantities of high-fat, high-sugar empty calories. Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12. Athletes, children and pregnant females are particularly at risk as their nutrient needs are especially high. Vegans (who eat no animal products of any type) especially need to supplement their vitamin B12 intake. Poor meal-planning, illness, stress and the excessive use of supplements can also cause problems. It's therefore wise to seek professional advice on your dietary needs before making the switch to vegetarianism.\\\" ~Calorie King Sources: http://www.vegetariantimes.com... http://www.calorieking.com...\",\n \"Vegetarianism\\nWhen it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters' minds is, \\\"What do you eat?\\\" The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and \\\"Fib Ribs\\\" to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more. Going vegetarian has never been easier, and we're here to help! From our fantastic recipes and list of favorite products and favorite vegetarian cookbooks to our free vegetarian starter kit and online shopping guide, PETA has all the information you need to adopt a healthy and humane vegetarian diet! Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food. Raising animals on factory farms is cruel and ecologically devastating. Eating animals is bad for our health, leading directly to many diseases and illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. In response to animal welfare, health, and ecological concerns, compassionate people everywhere are adopting a vegetarian diet. For Animals Animals on factory farms are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines. Chickens have their sensitive beaks seared off with a hot blade, and male cattle and pigs are castrated without any painkillers. All farmed chickens, turkeys, and pigs spend their brief lives in dark and crowded warehouses, many of them so cramped that they can't even turn around or spread a single wing. They are mired in their own waste, and the stench of ammonia fills the air. Animals raised for food are bred and drugged to grow as large as possible as quickly as possible—many are so heavy that they become crippled under their own weight and die within inches of their water supply. Animals on factory farms do not see the sun or get a breath of fresh air until they are prodded and crammed onto trucks for a nightmarish ride to the slaughterhouse, often through weather extremes and always without food or water. Many die during transport, and others are too sick or weak to walk off the truck after they reach the slaughterhouse. The animals who survive this hellish ordeal are hung upside-down and their throats are slit, often while they're completely conscious. Many are still alive while they are skinned, hacked into pieces, or scalded in the defeathering tanks. Learn more about the factory-farming industry. By switching to a vegetarian diet, you can save more than 100 animals a year from this misery. One suggestion: If you plan to make the transition to a vegetarian diet gradually, the most important foods to cut out of your diet first are bird flesh and eggs. While many people think that \\\"red meat\\\" and dairy products should be the first to go, this isn't the case. By cutting bird flesh from your diet, you'll save many more animals. Because chickens are so small, the average meat-eater is responsible for the deaths of many more chickens than cows. Plus, chickens and turkeys exploited by the meat and egg industries are the most abused animals commonly used for food. For Your Health Some of the leading killers in America today, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and strokes, are directly linked to meat-based diets. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America today, and it is caused by the build-up of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products in our arteries. The only two doctors in human history who have successfully reversed heart disease have included an exclusively vegetarian diet as a part of their programs. The average vegan cholesterol level is 133 (compared to 210 for meat-eaters); there are no documented cases of heart attacks in individuals with cholesterol under 150. Other health problems tied to clogged arteries, like poor circulation and atherosclerotic strokes, can be virtually eliminated with a vegan diet. Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning. Learn more about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. For the Environment America's meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country's meat addiction is wrecking the earth. Read more about factory farming and the environment. http://goveg.com...\",\n \"Vegetarianism\\nIt is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products.\",\n \"Humans should be vegetarians.\\nHumans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.\",\n \"Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products\\nWhy? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating \\\"well-planned diets,\\\" not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.\",\n \"Everyone should become a vegetarian\\nI don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.\",\n \"Eating meat is good for your health\\nMy opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. \\\"Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.\\\" [2]\\\"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women.\\\" [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, \\\"Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats.\\\" In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? \\\"Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked.\\\" [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies.\\\"Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk.\\\" [5] \\\"In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb.\\\" [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case.\\\"The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects.\\\" [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: \\\"When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren’t much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine).\\\" [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that \\\"more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products.\\\" This is no problem. \\\"Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor.\\\" [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com...\",\n \"Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.\\nOutline I. Intro II. Why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. III. Rebuttal of Con IV. Links I. Intro First, to reiterate the resolution. Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Con makes the statement below which confuses who is Pro and who is Con. Pro is the person that wants meat, eggs, and dairy to be banned worldwide. Con is the person who rejects the resolution and contends for no change to take place. \\\"Dear judges, if you are looking to be healthy and happy, vote pro. If you do NOT wish to suffer of health diseases. Vote pro. If you want to stay you. Vote pro. Thank you.\\\" Con has an identity crisis. I am Pro and Con is Con. II. Why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. Meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide because they are unhealthy to consume, production causes excessive environmental damage, production causes animal cruelty, and production agitates world hunger. Claim 1: Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy to consume. Warrant 1: These products contain excess amounts of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. While lacking antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Eating animal products displaces healthy food. Impact: Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy and displace healthy food and should be banned. Claim 2: Production of animal products causes excessive environmental damage. Warrant 2: \\\"Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows.\\\"[5]. \\\"The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. \\\"[6]. Impact 2: Production of meat, eggs, and dairy causes excessive environmental damage and should be banned. Claim 3: production causes animal cruelty Warrant 3: \\\"At 18 months of age, a fraction of a chicken's life span, these hens were considered spent, unable to produce eggs at a fast enough rate, and they were scheduled for slaughter. All 100 of them bore the physical and psychological scars of an entire young life spent in the crowded confines of a sunless, windowless, ammonia-filled cement shed. Even after weeks of sanctuary life, many are still in a state of constant terror, still panicking at the drop of a leaf, still cowering at the smallest noise, as if hit by a physical blow to the body. \\\" [7]. Impact 3: If free range chickens are treated this way, cage-free and battery cage chickens must suffer even more. Deliberately and intentionally causing animal suffering is immoral. Claim 4: production agitates world hunger Warrant 4: \\\"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish.\\\" [8]. \\\"The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food. \\\" [9] \\\"It\\\"s increasingly evident, however, that a part-time vegan diet \\\" one that emphasizes minimally processed plant food at the expense of everything else \\\" is the direction that will do the most to benefit human health, increase animal welfare and reduce environmental impact.\\\" [10] Impact 4: It takes at least twice as much pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat as opposed to eating the grain directly. This grain fed to livestock could be fed to hungry humans thus mitigating world hunger. The same is true of dairy as seen in link [9]. Meat, dairy, and egg production agitate world hunger and should be banned worldwide. Its unjust for 1st world countries to continue to consume large quantities of animal products. Pro has now established why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned. Now why not just ban these animal products in Rhode Island? Why the entire world? The environment and world hunger are global problems. It would be unjust to ban these products in one nation or state and instead should be banned worldwide. III. Rebuttal of Con \\\"My first assertion is that meat, eggs and dairy are required to maintain a healthy diet. What kind of diet if without meat, eggs and dairy? A diet that will cause life long health and eating problems. Without eggs, meat and dairy, people will suffer due to mal nutrition. \\\" Con This would be an effective argument is Con provided evidence to back up this claim. In fact Con's first link supports Pro's side. \\\"Fruit are whole foods, with plenty of fiber, nutrients and antioxidants. It is very difficult to overeat fructose if you\\\"re only getting it from whole fruit.\\\" [11]. \\\"A 100 gram portion (3.5 ounces) of raw ground beef contains large amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and plenty of other vitamins and minerals (5).\\\" Con It seems Con ran out of characters and did not post links to all sources used by Con. Pro contends its unfair for Con not to link the original source. Pro needs to see the quotes in their original context. \\\"Vitamin B12 is particularly important because it can not be gotten in ANY amount from plants. Studies show that out of vegans who don\\\"t supplement with B12, 92% are deficient in this critical nutrient (6).\\\" Con B12 comes from bacteria. Raw organic fruits and vegetables are covered in bacteria. Since B12 comes from bacteria and not animals nor plants, the claim that B12 cannot be gotten in any amounts from animals nor plants is accurate but misleading. Since, bacteria are found just about everywhere on the planet Earth. Bacteria producing b-12 can be found in the human gut. \\\"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives\\\" [12]. \\\"Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria\\\" [13]. \\\"B12 From Fruits And Vegetables All fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however. Why? Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in.\\\" [14]. B-12 can be gained from bacteria in the soil and human gut as well as supplements. As for 92% being deficient in b-12, all that means is that a little extra care is needed when on a vegan diet. Note, the 92% didn't supplement. \\\"Unprocessed meat is also loaded with healthy fats, but meat from grass-fed animals contains up to 5 times as much Omega-3 as meat from grain-fed animals\\\" Con Looking at the amount of omega-3's from grass-fed cows there are insignificant amounts. Pro seriously doubts that unprocessed meats are loaded with healthy fats. No outside link backing this claim up is supplied by Con. \\\"Milk and dairy products contain many nutrients and provide a quick and easy way of supplying these nutrients to the diet within relatively few calories. \\\" Con Milk is a dairy product, this statement is redundant. Dairy products are high in fat, fat contains 9 calories per gram. Dairy products are some of the highest fat and calorie per pound products available. \\\"Vegetarians are deficient in creatine, leading to reduced physical and mental performance \\\" Con Con does not supply proof for these claims. Pro contends that creatine is not to be concerned with. \\\"Carnosine is only found in animal foods\\\" Con Con has picked a term that hardly anyone has heard of and without proof, now claims that this nutrient is important. Both creatine and carsosine are proteins, and a vegan can receive enough protein. \\\"\\\"DHA and EPA are the active forms of Omega-3 in the human body and found primarily in animal foods. The body is inefficient at converting ALA (the plant form of Omega-3) to the active forms\\\" Con Fish receive their DHA and EPA omega-3s from eating seaweed and microalgae. A vegan can eat seaweed and microalgae for nourishment. \\\"Omega-3 fatty acids for nutrition and medicine: considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA.\\\"[15]. Pro is running out of characters and cannot address every point Con makes. Con goes on to state all the minerals and vitamins in animal products. Yes, there is vitamins and minerals in these foods, but so is there in plant foods. Kale and collards are two great examples. Con then goes onto economics and feasibility. Meat is a humongous industry. Yet, sooner or later morals take precedence over the wallet. Global climate change is a dire threat. If nothing else, self-survival demands that meat, eggs, and dairy to be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. Thank you. Pro looks forward to the next round of debate. IV. Links 5. http://wwf.panda.org... 6. http://www.greenpeace.org... 7. http://www.humanemyth.org... 8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 9. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 10. http://www.nytimes.com... 11. http://authoritynutrition.com... 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13 .http://www.nature.com... 14. http://www.raw-food-health.net... 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...\",\n \"The World Should Become Vegetarian\\nPeople crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.\",\n \"Eating meat is healthy.\\nImmorality of eating meat is incoherent to this debate, as we are arguing the health of eating meat. I will need to see sources for your census to believe its legitimacy. My opponent's fallacy that eating less meat will cure world hunger. This does not apply to the health of eating meat, nor can it be considered remotely true. I decided to use the mayoclinic as a source to (below) Here is what they said about meat: \\\"Meat and poultry can be valuable sources of protein and other important nutrients\\\" [1] Con has not refuted the arguments of the health benefits that meat possess, which I have shown in Round 1. The nutrients and vitamins (Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more) in meat show the benefits to ones health. I have refuted any possible correlation with heart disease, and will refute any arguments regarding mortality, if proper sources are given to prove those statistics. http://www.mayoclinic.org...\",\n \"The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.\\nWe are not omnivores. Humans are most often described as \\\"omnivores.\\\" This classification is based on the \\\"observation\\\" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, \\\"observation\\\" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most \\\"natural\\\" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly \\\"behavioral\\\" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods\",\n \"should cormorant birds be slaughtered\\nYeah, They should their just a bunch of Woutarded $hIt eating birds. Also, My Jewish god told me animal lives don't mean anything, Therefore animals lives don't matter Woutard.\",\n \"Vegetarianism is good for your health\\nSorry I thought \\\"vegan\\\" was short form of \\\"vegetarian\\\". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. \\\"Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with.\\\" Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. \\\"Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans.\\\" Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.\",\n \"Everyone should be vegetarian.\\nI think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?\",\n \"You don’t have to be vegetarian to be an avid environmentalist.\\nGood examples of environmentalist meat-eaters include Theodore Roosevelt and Native American Indians. These meat-eating-environmentalists appreciate the source of their meat, the life-form that was behind it, and acted to uphold a sustainable environmental balance. As long as you live up to these principles, there is no contradiction between eating meat and being an environmentalist.\",\n \"Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead\\n(1) Since my rebuttals will be (partly) predicated on Pro's arguments being irrelevant to the resolution, I suppose it would be pertinent to explain exactly what the resolution means. Let's begin with \\\"Vegans practicing on moral principle\\\". This essentially means that the debate will be made from the moral perspective of veganism. Our focus will necessarily take into account the moral foundations of vegan practice. Next we have \\\"should\\\". We are arguing what vegans should do based on the \\\"moral principle\\\" expressed in the first part of the resolution. Lastly is, \\\"become Freegan instead\\\". This means that, given the 'moral principle' (yet to be defined) which vegans operate under, they should drop veganism to practice freeganism. Pro instead argues that freeganism is prima facie morally superior (without defining or defending the moral perspective which informs this argument). This is irrelevant to the resolution as Pro is actually tasked with showing why the moral principles behind veganism support freeganism as morally superior. Given that vegan principles are expressly stated as supporting the abandonment of animal suffering, it seems at least implausible that freeganism could be shown to be born out of veganist principle. Pro has failed to follow the resolution, choosing instead to argue (without a coherent moral foundation) why Freeganism is a better choice regardless of the unique moral sensibilities of veganism.Note: This is not a semantical argument, but a necessary elucidation of what the resolution means in light of an argument which appears to ignore its necessary implications.(2) Even if we ignore the first point of criticism, it cannot be ignored that Pro has decided to offer points based off of a complete lack of moral justification. That is, even if one could coherently maintain that this debate is over which practice is prima facie morally superior, Pro would have failed in that he fails to offer a compelling moral justification for eating only that which is wasted. It's not as if it's obvious why curtailing animal suffering is morally inferior to consuming waste after all. In fact, given that pain is inextricably linked to our own moral sensibilities [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] it seems rather obvious why veganism would be morally superior to freeganism (as opposed to the other way around). Pro's arguments are maintained only by presuming at the outset that stopping waste is not only morally right, but morally superior to allaying the suffering of animals. I do not intend to concede either of these principles. Therefore the onus is on Pro to argue in favor of them.(3) But since the BoP is to be shared, I will also elect to provide an argument for the moral superiority of veganism over freeganism. As stated previously, it seems prima facie reasonable that allaying the suffering of conscious creatures is morally superior to reducing waste. But seeing as this is essentially a philosophical debate, mere prima facie reasonableness will not do. Instead I will draw on Peter Singer's preference utilitarian argument against the inflicting of unnecessary suffering against conscious creatures capable of feeling pain. Other standards of moral worth such as inclusion in the human species or cognitive ability are either arbitrary (the former) or non-universal in humans (the latter) which would put the severely, mentally handicapped at the same moral worth as animals. Suffering appears to be the best measure of moral worth both because of our own evolutionary history (see above) and given the inconsistencies which arise given other standards of moral worth. A vegan diet attempts to allay animal suffering by refusing to lend support practices which inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Further credence is lent to the position by virtue of the fact that veganism does not present serious health risks that can't be allayed by nutritional supplements [http://ajcn.nutrition.org...].\",\n \"Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.\\nAs you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming \\\"picky-eaters\\\". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the \\\"meat\\\" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic \\\"epidemics\\\", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.\",\n \"Should People Become Vegetarian\\nMany people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.\",\n \"Ben Should Become a Vegetarian\\nBen should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: \\\"The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.\\\"Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. \\\"Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers.\\\"I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier.\\\"The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.\\\"Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on \\\"hirs and his\\\". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!\",\n \"Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral\\nI apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source \\\"...\\\" this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment \\\"Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways.\\\" can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote \\\"The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers.\\\" [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote \\\"It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. \\\" This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 \\\"Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced.\\\" [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes \\\"Blue tongue disease\\\", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state \\\"Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all.\\\" Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes \\\"Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis.\\\" Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section \\\"Toward Rational Meat Eating\\\" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly \\\"Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction.\\\" \\\"Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits.\\\" So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con \\\"Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues.\\\" Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote \\\"Environmental Protection Agency \\\" calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer\\\"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables.\\\" [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument \\\"However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals.\\\" It\\\"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 \\\"\\\" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans.\\\" But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org...\",\n \"A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.\\nA vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It\\\"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one\\\"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.\",\n \"Vegan Diets are Healthier\\n1. Well-Planned Diets are to be Compared The resolution is \\\"Resolved: Well planned vegan diets are healthier than their meat-based counterparts.\\\" The counterpart to a well-planned vegan diet is a well planned meat-based diet. I take a \\\"meat-based diet\\\" to be any diet that includes meat on a regular basis. For example, if a vegan diet is used with some of the protein from beans replaced with protein from fish, then Pro must prove that the departure from strict vegetarianism results in poorer health. I contend that any diet, vegan or non-vegan. that provides all of the nutrients needed, and at the same time avoids excessive amount of unhealthy nutrients will produce the same nutrition-based health. Pro's initial argument, I claim, amounts to saying that a well-planned vegan diet is less healthy than a poorly planned diet with meat. Vegans are extraordinarily health-conscious compared to the average. Why else would a person eschew a great variety of tasty foods in favor of a restricted diet? Okay, sometimes people are vegetarians for religious reasons, but they are nonetheless diet-conscious -- they are not casually consuming whatever tastes good. It should not be surprising that any person who is fanatical about diet or health will end up with better health than one who is not., all other things equal. Comparing the average vegan with the average non-vegan does not support the resolution, since the average non-vegan is not adhering to the \\\"well-planned diet\\\" requirement. For example, the longest-lived population in the world are the residents of Okinawa. They do not eat a vegan diet, They eat a balanced diet that includes animal proteins in reasonable quantities along with vegetables. \\\"Meat, poultry, and eggs account for just 3% of the diet, fish about 11%.\\\" http://www.wellnessletter.com... Okinawans are not typical non-vegans, but they are a good approximation having the \\\"well-planned\\\" non-vegan diet. Their health is better than most vegetarian societies. 2. Cholesterol is Fine in Moderation Pro points to cholesterol as a critical dangerous component of meat. Cholesterol is one of those things necessary for health, but harmful in excess. In is something like vitamin D in that the body can manufacture it or it can be obtained from food. Too little Vitamin D causes a deficiency disease, but too much is extremely toxic. A vegetarian can get too much cholesterol from diet. \\\"... coconut oil may be cholesterol free, but is highly saturated and more dangerous than seafood, as it causes the liver to produce more harmful cholesterol. Saturated fat also raises triglyceride levels and thickens the blood. ... Seafood, on the other hand, contains cholesterol, but also the protective polyunsaturated fats that cause the liver to produce less harmful cholesterol and more protective HDL cholesterol. ... That's why, rather than worry about high cholesterol foods, you should pay attention to foods high in saturated fats.\\\" http://www.all-about-lowering-cholesterol.com... A well-planned vegan diet will avoid that problem, but so will a well-planned non-vegan diet, both by avoiding saturated fats. 3. Obesity is From Calories, not Meat Obesity causes health risks. However, it is certainly the case that some vegans are obese and many non-vegans are not obese. For example, a study showed \\\"Roman gladiators were overweight vegetarians and not the muscle-bound men portrayed by actors\\\" http://www.abc.net.au... All that matters is how many calories the person consumes, not whether the calories are plant or animal. \\\"Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive dietary calories, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility, '\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Again, it is reasonable that vegans are obese than average people, because vegans are diet conscious, vegetables have lower energy density than meat, and to many people meat tastes better. However, a well-planned non-vegan diet also has the proper amount of calories. 4. Statistics Show No Vegetarian Advantage If there were, as Pro claims, some inherent health problem with non-vegan diets, than vegans should have a consistent health advantage. Even though vegans tend to be health conscious, the statistics show no advantage. A metastudy compiles the data from many studies into one. \\\"The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the \\\"lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Other studies of certain selected vegetarian populations show some marginal advantage in life expectancy, but it seems that non-diet factors are responsible, Other factors are not-smoking, higher income and lower stress levels. A National Geographic Study http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com... gives a sense of the factors. Those long-lived Okinawans have low stress and void smoking along with a fish-centric diet. 5. Science Favors a Balanced Diet The National Institutes of Health recommends a balanced diet that includes meat, fish, and dairy. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee states: \\\"...consume a diet rich in vegetables and fruits; choose whole-grain, high-fiber foods; consume fish, especially oily fish, at least twice a week; limit intake of saturated fat to 7% of energy, trans fat to1% of energy, and cholesterol to 300 mg/day by choosing lean meats and vegetable alternatives, fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1% fat) dairy products and minimize intake of partially hydrogenated fats; minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars; choose and prepare foods with little or no salt;\\\" http://circ.ahajournals.org... It might be argued that vegan diets are healthier because it's easier for the average person to make a well-planned diet. It's easier in some ways, because it's likely that vegans will get more fiber and less saturated fat without much extra effort. However, the disadvantages are more than an offset. Vitamin B12 is in virtually all meat, but \\\" vegans will lack B12 unless they consume B12-containing dietary supplements or B12-fortified foods.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Deficiency of B12 produces pernicious anemia, which s fatal if untreated. \\\"Vegetarians often have normal hemoglobin, but low iron stores (ferritin) in liver, muscles and bone marrow. Iron absorption is improved by including Vitamin C (75 mg per meal or about 6 oz orange juice) along with an iron supplement (as much as 50 mg per day) and high iron foods.\\\" http://www.dietitian.com... Those who eat little red meat can also have iron deficiency, but the body naturally cravings for red meat when iron is low, so the problem is more easily recognized. \\\"For the most part, vegetarians get adequate protein if they eat a balanced vegetarian diet. In fact a healthy vegetarian diet usually exceeds protein requirements. ... The best way to make sure you're getting enough nutrients , including protein, is to keep track of the foods you eat on a daily basis.\\\" http://vegetarian.lovetoknow.com... In sum, vegan diets are no healthier than meat-based diets. Both must be \\\"well-planned.\\\"\",\n \"THW believes that eating meat is better than eating vegetables\\nHumans are omnivores, and this is not up to debate. Our body needs an equal amount of products from the animal kingdom as well as from the plant kingdom. Separation isn't a viable option for the body as it has evolved over several million years to consume, digest and build itself around a diverse and varied menu that consisted not only of hunted meat but berries, herbs and plants. Saying that eating vegetables is better than eating meat is just as unorthodox as saying that eating meat is better than vegetables. But since no things can truly be equal one must have the slight advantage over the other. To truly find which kingdom is better we must observe what would happen if someone would ONLY eat a product of the other kingdom. If I'd refuse to eat anything but meat would I be better put than someone that eats only vegetables? If we start with vegetarians we can quickly find numerous sources on both pro's and cons of being a vegetarian. A quick look around the internet shows us numerous sites, pages, articles and magazine covers marvelling the benefits of knocking our furry little friends from the dinner table. Some of the benefits include: Having higher quantities of the following nutrients:-Fiber-Antioxidants-Vitamin C-Vitamin E-Potassium-Magnesium Vegetarians are also less likely to develop heart diseases, have a much lower blood pressure, don't have the same amount of cholesterol in their blood and some studies have pointed towards a reduce chance of cancer. They also are more likely to exercise, drink moderately and refrain from smoking as compared to the general public. However, a meat free diet isn't as perfect as it seems; as vegetarians have some problems of their own. Some of the side effects of vegetarianism include:Lower amounts of -Calories,-Saturated Fats,-Cholestrorol,-Omega-3,-EOA,-DHA,-Iron,-Zinc-Vitamin B-12. Which are abundant in meat products and fish. If they also refrain from milk and egg products they also experience a shortage in Vitamins B-2, D and Calcium. The lack of Calcium puts vegans at a substantial risk when it comes to bone diseases and bone fractures. The low cholesterol level is also a questionable trait, because even if it decreases the chance of heart failures it does seem to increase the risk of an early mortality. But remember that most researches on vegetarians seem to disagree. Some say that it solves all our problems and others state quite to opposite. This is in part because our diet isn't the only thing that makes use healthy, and so result may change person to person. These shortages of certain vitamins and minerals must be fought either with meat eating, eating an excess amount of plants that include some of the minerals you need (which in some cases require you to eat an unhealthy amount) or replace them with synthetic nutrients, pills or find other natural sources that may or may not be readily available to you where ever you happen to live.1-2 Now, let's look at the typical meatatarian. It isn't a commonly used term and since it is rather rare to only eat meat and excluding other food sources finding reliable sources proves to be a bit difficult. Eventually the following results where found: It is perfectly possible to live solely on meat, but you can't cherry pick, you eat everything on the animal and if you are dealing with red meat, eat it raw. I present the case of the Inuit diet. Inuit, or informally an Eskimo, are native dwellers of the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland and Alaska. In the frozen wastelands that the icecap is getting a good share of vegetables and fruits can be a bit of a challenge. In practice, it is almost impossible in lands where you may expect sub-zero temperatures all year long. So how do they cope? Meat. And a lot of it. They primarily eat the following:seal, walrus, whale, caribou, polar bear, muskoxen, birds and their eggs and fish. The few plants that do grow in the snow are gathered and eaten as well, but in comparison to the amount of meat Inuit eat it doesn't seem all too abundant.And how does this meat menu affect their health? Any illnesses swimming amongst the seals? au contraire, the tribes that walk around the ice are in superb health. Inuit high-fat dinner plate helps in keeping the body warm. It counters against protein poisoning and because almost all of the fat is so called 'good' fat it does not post the same risk as the typical western high-fat diet. They feel full of energy, the live long and leading lives and in the harsh winters the body is well insulated and fit for all occasions.3 But maybe cherry picking the high fat Inuit diet doesn't really support my case well enough in the western world: we need a more fitting diet for our situation. What about missing nutrients? Won't an all meat diet cause Scurvy? Cooked meat isn't rich in vitamin C after all. What other minerals are we missing? Well, Truth to be told we aren't missing any of them if we know what we are eating. Meat is filled to the brim with B-12, Omega-3, Protein, Niacin, B-6, Iron, Zinc, Phosphorus, Selenium, some amounts of vitamin D along with a handful of other nutrients4. For fibers you can eat the tissues that surround the bones, connect limbs together and various parts of muscles. Calsium if you don't want the milk is also abundant in certain parts of the corpse, albeit most of it is collected in the bones. You can grind them down and add to your meal but I'd recommend just drinking a glass of milk and a slice of cheese instead. That just leaves vitamin C. I already touched the subject that cooked meat contains no vitmin C, so how would the meat menu counter that? Simple, he skips the cooking part. The organs of animals are often rich in vitamin C and if eaten raw are a perfect source for that scurvy countering vitamin. It is a bit disgusting eating raw meat at first, but as with all foods you'll adapt eventually. For Derek Nance it took around a week or two. Derek, due to health issues, cannot eat anything but raw meat5. And he is perfectly fine, fit and healthy. He eats raw meat, meat organs, lamb, beef, not pigs due to hormone and bacterial risks and even a few rotten chunks of meat. 5 years in and he is healthier than he has ever been, much healthier than he was when he ate a mixure of meat and veggies, fish and fruits and cooked cuisine. Readers of the debate, you don't need to go to extremes. You should in all situations try to keep a diverse and varied cuisine in your home using both meat and plant products. But if you find yourself at a crossroad and have to choose either way you'll find that meat in itself provides you with a much healthier stand than eating fruits and veggies. With one you can live of the corpse of the lamb alone if you need to, but you'll always need something else on the side when going green. Save an innocent carrot, eat meat. 1)http://www.bu.edu...2)http://www.mnn.com...3) http://en.wikipedia.org...4) http://ro.uow.edu.au...5) http://www.vice.com...\",\n \"Everyone oughta be vegan.\\nWhile animal cruelty is a serious issue, for the most part it's not really the fault of farms. There have been multiple laws passed in order to prevent animal cruelty, and by simply following these laws and adding newer ones, this will help to protect those fluffy animals. For the most part, it's not even things such as bears and rabbits that are killed. They're usually cows and other animals that are used for the sake of human consumption. Animals do deserve better respect, but meat is good too\",\n \"THW become Vegetarians\\nThanks for your last round. I will say my argumentsone last time then I wil say why I won and finish the debate. 1. You’ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce——another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You’ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet—high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates——is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You’ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. ”People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.” 4.You’ll build strong bones. When there isn’’t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended——through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You’ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You’ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy——energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won’’t open properly and that your muscles won’’t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You’ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You’ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You’ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can’’t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law——in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You’ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans’’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a “greener” car in the fight against climate change. I should win this debate because I made strong arguments saying that it is good for you and also it is healty. I rebutted all of Con's Points saying that you can still have protein without eating meat.Therefore, I hope everyone votes for Pro!!!\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Vegetarianism is a good idea. Thank you to Leekatya for what looks to be a promising and respectful debate. Good luck to you. I'd like to start out by stating my position on the subject of vegetarianism. While I certainly don't think it is bad, I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone who wants to (or does) include meat in their diets and believe that that position can be supported from both an ethical and health perspective. I will attempt to prove that an omnivorous diet is just as good, if not better than a vegetarian lifestyle. I will start by addressing some of Leekatya's comments and adding support for my position. \"...most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians.\" Before commenting on this statement, I need you to provide me with reasons as to why you believe it is wrong in order that your concerns can be properly addressed. Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position? \"According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease.\" I did google KEDEM, but did not find any results for vegetarian research. Perhaps you could supply a link for that? The information that did come up, however, seemed to contradict at least one of those points. According to a study done by the JAMA Internal Medicine, \"Eating plant foods didn't seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure.\" 1 As for diabetes and heart disease, when they are caused by dietary issues, it often stems from an imbalanced nutrition. Meat eating is not the primary cause of such diseases, but rather (and note the difference) *too much* meat can play a role. As with everything, moderation is the key. Just because someone eats more meat than is healthy for them and they get sick does not mean that the solution is to abstain from it entirely. \"Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" \" An important point to mention here is that a primary concern of those who don't eat meat is health. *Which means that they are already aware and conscious of health issues in general*. It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not. Of course they are! When someone is proactively taking steps towards a specific goal, they will be more likely to achieve it than someone who does not. While people who exercise have a greater chance of being healthy, that does not by definition mean someone who does not exercise is not healthy. So too with vegetarianism. And proof of the fact that vegetarians are more conscious about a healthy lifestyle is the following statistic: \"75 percent of vegans abstain from alcohol, as opposed to 8 percent of omnivores; 94 percent abstain from smoking, as opposed to 67 percent of omnivores; and 80 percent of vegetarians exercise in their free time compared to 70 percent of omnivores.\"2 (it is significant to note in those statistics that only about 5% of Americans identify as vegetarians. 3) All those factors, especially abstinence from smoking also contribute to being healthier in regards to disease. And once again, just to reiterate my point, the above simply means that vegetarians are more conscious about living a healthy lifestyle. It reflects a lifestyle but does not mean that the plant-eating itself is what causes one to be healthy. Though I personally have no problem with people being vegetarians, for the sake of completeness here is an argument concerning health issues in a vegetarian lifestyle: The lack of certain nutrients in plant-based foods requires many a vegetarian to take additional supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, just to name a few. If a vegetarian lifestyle was truly what we were intended to be living by, we would be able to source all the necessary nutrients in plants. In addition, studies have shown that there is a slightly lower bone mineral density in vegetarians as opposed to omnivores. 4 Thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me and I look forward to your response. Here are my sources, in order: 1) http://www.news-medical.net... 2) http://weanuhaske.wordpress.com... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org... 4) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...","Ben Should Become a Vegetarian 1. The other options I speak of are technological breakthroughs in resource management across the board. Too few people are going to change their eating habits in time, the issue will necessarily blow up on us as it has to in order to enact real change, and the concept here I'm pointing out is a form of \"strategic failing.\" The cultural conversation might more easily shift from \"eat differently\" to \"how should we expect our legislatures to invest\". 2. A \"non-meat majority\" on the food pyramid doesn't make the minority go away any more than this would justify making laws that help only white people because another ethnicity is in the minority. 3a. Simply alternating between veggie and meat friendly places would be a good compromise since as I pointed out the strain is symmetrical. I'm not aware of all the other veggie centric options when going out to eat. I do sympathize with the plight of having limited options on many menus. 3b. I'm not necessarily talking about me, but it would be easier to be more pro-active on the political front than change my desires for meat consumption. Those who are able, driven, and willing should definitely pursue this particular issue in the realm of political change. Important decisions on how to spend our tax dollars to make the world a better place need to be made. There are many big political issues (perhaps too many) that require this kind of attention and those who have the capacity to specialize in each one need to make certain kinds of change amicable to the average person who may share the same values to whatever degree, but can't reasonably be expected to always do something about it. 3c. ...","Pro's choice First my opponent attacks nutrition, and protein. Other than meats, there is not a lot of protein in foods such as nuts. Besides, using cause and effect, beCAUSE people will turn to vegetarianism, less people will eat the animals designed to be eaten by humans, thus increasing the amount of cattle, poultry, and pig/hog (whatever you want to call pork), without increasing the amount of room/their food. By doing that, you cause their population to dramatically drop, due to starvation. My opponent says that medication is not natural, when some of it is. The Native Americans used to make medication from plants, with no artificial flavors or benefits, so I can see that medication is sometimes natural. To this day you can find natural medicines for almost anything. . http://naturalmedications.com... This is a lot more natural than going against what we are. As I have stated humans are designed to eat both plants and meats, therefore, it is only natural for us to eat such foods. My opponent's next argument is that vegetarianism is more moral than eating meat. How would it be against our morals to eat what was intended for us to eat? Would it not be more immoral than to let the offspring suffer, and starve, due to the fact there is more of them than there is hunters of them? Why would letting living breathing creatures, their due in at least living a productive life? No it is not like watching cocks fight, or any other animal. If most of us become vegetarians than that would be like watching animals kill each other for fun, my reasoning is the fact that I have brought up twice, that if the population suddenly is not hunted as much, they will make the same number of offspring, and less food, which btw is plants for most of the animals listed, sometimes nuts in the case of poultry. This link is 10 reasons why man is not a vegearian, please read it. It is the rest of my arguement for this round. . http://bodybuilding.com... Thank you ladies and gentlemen.","Should Humans Eat Meat I have been raised eating meat my whole life. My dad, step dad, mom, grandpa, grandma were all hunters and lived off meat they have killed them selves. I have tried to go vegan/vegetarian two times. I tried both time for about 3 months and both time I had head aches all day, and near the end, both time, I started shaking. So who the hell do you think you are calling us selfish and ignorant. I do not agree with \"chicken farms,\" or harming animals for no cause, but you went over the top. I have tried to stop, because once I thought that it was wrong to kill animals for food, but I did my research and found WE WERE MADE TO EAT MEAT! MEAT IS HEALTHY! I'm not telling you to start eating meat! Being vegan is great. But don't go around calling names when you don't know the other point of view.","It is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products. We should eat five or six portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but without adding some meat or fish it is hard to make sure our body is getting the protein and iron it needs to be healthy. It might be OK for adults to choose a vegetarian diet for themselves, but should we allow vegetarian parents to impose such a diet on their babies? Meats are an easy and reliable source of protein, an essential building-block for the human body.","Why People Should Be Vegetarian We kill plants but we know it's wrong. Plants are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those plants are in need of help. We need to stop eating plants so we can save more plants in the near future. See, it works this way too.","Going Vegan Thank you for the great debate topic. Pro's definition of veganism is that of the ethical vegan, which is the orthodox side of veganism. Other types of veganism exist such as dietary veganism, where the reasons for becoming a vegan are more for personal health benefits rather than for the salvation of animals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would class the dietary vegans in somewhat of a conservative or reformed type of veganism. Some ethical (orthodox) vegans do not like dietary vegans to be called real vegans because they aren't fully converted to the full vegan lifestyle. http://www.theveganwoman.com... You'll see me draw several parallels between veganism and religion in my arguments as I will show that vegansim is very much a type of religion. It's not a religion that touches the subject of God, but its a religion where the orthodox adherents must not waver in their vegan beliefs or actions unless they are to be ridiculed and excommunicated from the community of orthodox vegans. I hold that every person should have the freedom to do what they choose, live the life they want to live, and live with the positive or negative consequences of their decisions. Pro's argument is that \"people should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle, and that way we don't harm or kill animals.\" In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by \"people.\" Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take \"people\" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.","A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans. Meat (and dairy) eaters eat unhealthily as they take in far too much fat, protein and cholesterol, and often far too little fibre and vitamins. Eating a varied range of cereals, fruits, nuts and vegetables is a delicious way of getting all the vitamins, minerals, fibre and protein your body needs.","go vegetarian Humans can choose their own nutrition plan","The World Should Become Vegetarian My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.","Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)","Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Thank you for accepting the challenge. Here is a list of the arguments I will outline in the following paragraphs. 1)Health benefits of being vegetarian. 2)Global benefits of vegetarianism. 3)Environmental benefits of vegetarianism. 4)The ethical question behind eating meat. Argument 1: There are numerous health benefits that a vegetarian diet can have. First of all, studies have shown that vegetarians are at least %25 less likely to contract chronic heart conditions, the biggest killer in America. Heart disease has plagued western civilization since the dawning of mankind, and perhaps a vegetarian diet is one of the keys to a final solution. Vegetarianism is healthy for the cardiovascular system as it reduces the amount of animal fats and cholesterol that people consume, instead replacing it with antioxidants and fiber. Furthermore, vegetarianism has been linked to a decrease in the likelihood of getting cancers. A study in Germany found that vegetarians have a decreased likelihood of getting colon cancer, for one. Lastly, vegetarian diets have been shown to help people lose weight, which explains why there are very few obese vegetarians out there. The diet essentially decreases the amount of saturated fats and excessive calories that people consume. Meat has very condensed calories, and our brains simply can\"t figure out when we are full until about 20 minutes after our stomachs say ENOUGH. So condensed calories, plus a brain that can\"t read if we are full or not fast enough, essentially spells out bad news for the bathroom scales. Plants, on the other hand, have very minimal amounts of calories, meaning that more of them can be consumed without causing weight gain. The major issue that people have with a vegetarian diet is the belief that vegetarianism can be linked to nutrient deficiencies, and in some cases, this is true; however, when the diet is well planned out well, then malnutrition rarely poses much of an issue. The major nutrients that vegetarians lack are vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and protein. The only one of these nutrients that cannot be found in plants is vitamin B12; however, this is found in many supplements available to essentially everyone. Many people say that iron cannot be taken from plants as animals have a different kind of iron known as heme-iron; however, this is simply not true. Although it is harder for our bodies to process iron from plants, it can still be done fairly easily and efficiently, and for the person who can\"t process it, there are cruelty-free supplements of heme-iron out there as well. In summary, if the vegetarian diet is planned out well, the effects can be remarkable, including lower risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer. Argument 2: A vegetarian diet can have many positive effects on many current, global issues. A recent study found that nearly %40 of corn and %67 of soy produced in the United States is going towards raising livestock for the meat and dairy industry, essentially meaning that about 13 pounds of grain goes into one pound of edible meat. Doesn\"t add up, right? In a society where approximately 805 million people live in starvation, does it really make sense to essentially throw away that much food? No, it doesn\"t. But it gets a lot worse than that. Not only is food thrown away to the livestock industry, but water too. We\"re talking about the raising of over 56 billion farm animals every year. That\"s a lot of water. To put it into statistics, that\"s about %27 of the freshwater deficit. Thus, vegetarianism not only has a positive effect on an individual\"s health, but also the current state of global affairs. Argument 3: The livestock industry has a horrible effect on the environment that only a vegetarian diet can really fix. Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce about 89,000 pounds of excrement per second. Where does it all go, then? Well many places, places that people probably don\"t want feces. One of the ways to dispose of waste is to sell it as fertilizer, and all though this makes apples in the supermarket extra sweet and juicy, it also causes a run-off effect. This means that when it rains or water is sprayed on the area, the excrement flows into surrounding rivers and lakes where it kills fish and other wildlife. The other disposal method is throwing the excrement into lagoons and waiting for it to decompose. This too causes a seeping effect. So what does seeping actually do? The EPA reported that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid hog urine and feces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14 million fish died as an immediate result. Aside from water, animals grown for livestock also contaminate the air. A Consumer Union Study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the United States produce approximately 14 million pounds of particle dust each year, dust that contains harmful pathogens and toxins. Another way that the livestock industry gets rid of animal feces is turning it into a mist like substance and having it carried away by the wind. Unfortunately, unsuspecting citizens of neighboring towns inhale this toxic air and can become severely sick from it. There really isn\"t a way to stop the industry from doing this, as what are their other options, contaminating more water and damaging the environment even more? The only real way to ensure that these horrible things don\"t happen is to cut all funding to the meat and dairy industry by going vegetarian or vegan. Argument 4: Whether or not it is right to kill an animal for the purpose of meat has been an ethical question for decades. The simple fact is that no, it isn\"t. Nature dictates that killing an animal is okay when it is absolutely necessary. This is usually not the case with people. The simple fact of the matter is that in the general population, meat is consumed because of convenience and taste; however, what most people don\"t realize is that the animals that the animals that they eat once had a face, a mother, maybe a son or daughter. We know that animals feel familial connections maybe even stronger than people do, so the idea of a baby calf being torn from its mother\"s arms only moments after birth to be shipped off to some veal factory is simply horrendous. Or, it can be spun the other way, where the mother is torn away to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. To cause an animal so much pain for the sake of a hamburger or a piece of steak is simply wrong and unethical. What a vegetarian diet does is stand up for the animals and essentially say that people don\"t want to be a part of such cruelty. Furthermore, the meat industry has shown time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be allowed to care for animals. It seems like every month a new case of animal abuse comes out. Two months ago it was chickens drowning in their own feces, while last month it was ducks being forced to walk on wire floors, breaking their feet and smashing their faces against the iron wiring. These cases pop up all the time and no matter how many lawsuits are filed, nothing changes. The only way to fully end this kind of cruelty is to go vegetarian and stop giving money to torcher. In summary, vegetarian diets have many positive effects on everything from a person\"s diet, to the state of issues like world hunger and pollution.","Humans can kill and eat animals Humans should be allowed to kill and eat animals. Humans have fought their way to the top of the food chain for tens of thousands of years, and there is no reason why this should stop. Life is not possible without death. When I die, my assets will be given up to those who inherit them, likewise with animals. Whilst I believe that people have the right to be vegetarians, I honestly believe that if it is due to the natural view that people shouldn't kill animals because it is unethical, then they are wrong. Whilst I have physically seen some slaughterhouses, and their terrible conditions, I believe that it is human nature to kill animals, and thus, so long as animals are treated with compassion and given space, there is nothing wrong with killing animals. If you go to the savannah in Africa, you will discover that some animals cannot defend themselves anyway from wild predators. The same is likewise in our society. Furthermore, in developing nations, it is very important for the economy that animals are killed, (e.g. whilst there is deforestation in many nations like Brazil to make space to farm animals, a huge amount of investment comes through from large firms, such as McDonald's, thus boosting GDP). Finally, vegetarian diets naturally lack vitamin B-12, which has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system. Some vegans have been led to serious health problems.","Ben Should Become a Vegetarian 1. I don't consume much red meat to begin with and that is creating the largest issue on your first graph. You still consume dairy products and that creates a much larger issue (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) than how much chicken I eat (which would be more than my consumption of red meat by far). You link to an article about the UN conducting a study on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, yet that is dated. The UN admitted to important flaws in the report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and concludes instead: \"efforts should be focused on \"smarter farming, not less farming\". There will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques and invent new geo-engineering technologies than to change our meat eating habits and so as a culture pursuing the former rather than the latter is a better use of time and effort. 2. That study is commenting on the question of whether vegetarian diets are feasible and noting those health benefits. That doesn't invalidate every other kind of diet. 3A. This is just as much an argument for you to become an omnivore again, as it is for me to convert to your diet. Our culture simply has more meat options and the practical strain argument would seem to lean in my favor. 3B. There is reduced moral strain when we recognize the realistic limits of what we can do. We are not in a particularly potent position of pushing forward for new geo-engineering technologies or farming techniques that will have the most impact on issues like climate change and resource management. We can promote education as local activists instead and when politicians are running on the right issues we can vote them in as well as collectively pressure for those policies. 3C. This is your most tempting proposal, but I'm afraid there are still plenty of ways to make our friends suffer under the tyranny of our joint cuteness. ;)","Pro's choice Vegatarianism The deffinition: http://en.wikipedia.org... Strict Vegetarianism does not give one all of the nutritional things that humans need to survive. Even with the vegie-burgers and tofu, among other things do not give enough substancial protein to live on. It is also unnatural unnatural, meaning something that does not happen naturally, naturally meaning, found in nature. Yes some animals are herbavores, but humans are omnivores meaning, they are not herbavores, nor carnavores, but they need plant and animal food to survive. Our bodies need both meat and vegtables in order to function properly. Example: Bears are omnivores as well. how often have you seen a bear in noture, not eat fish? Yes it eats berries, as well, as an omnivore should. However, the bear cannot live a very healthy life. Thus humans cannot live a life soley on fruits and vegtables. We as the race of humanity need to live as naturally as we can, thus Vegetarianism is an abomination of our sociaty. I have more arguements but save them for the round 2 of this debate (or round 3 if you prefer)","Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat A few reasons why vegetarianism is not just a \"bad excuse to not eat meat\".ReligionSome religions such as many Hindu sects, and Jainism require vegetarianism. Religion is a matter of personal belief. Some people derive great meaning and purpose from religion. A person who is a vegetarian because of their religion does not just have a \"bad excuse to not eat meat\".Personal Feelings/PsychologyEverybody has their personal feelings about things. A person might think eating intestines or liver or dog is disgusting. Why? It just really comes down to how the person feels. Some people might see meat and think of the animal getting slaughtered while eating it. I don't, but some people might and if I did I probably would be a vegetarian. Some people's personal feelings might be such that they have a psychological need to be a vegetarian and trying not to be would hurt their psychological health.Taste BudsEverybody has different taste buds. Some people might just find that they don't like the taste of meat.Dietary NeedsA planned vegetarian diet can have some health benefits. There is less risk of problems associated with the consumption of meat. Protein can be substituted with soy, beans, and nuts. Many vegetarians also drink milk and eat eggs. It is not necessary to be a vegan in order to be a vegetarian. Some people might even adopt a vegetarian diet to help them in achieving something, such as athletics.http://www.nomeatathlete.com...In some cases vegetarianism is recommended for medical treatment, such as with some cases of rheumatoid arthritis.http://www.pcrm.org...Food SafetySome underdeveloped countries have poor sanitation and the people are too poor to affoard modern appliances to keep food clean. Keeping meat sanitary and free of infection may be difficult and there may be many diseases such as E. Coli that a person could catch. In fact that's still an occassional problem in developed countries, although it is easier for us to take measures to make sure it is ok if we cook it. If a person is legitimately concerned about getting infected that's a good reason to be a vegetarian.Political ConcernsPeople have their own political beliefs that may play into the decision. A person might not even think meat should be illegal, but consider the way the meat industry is run today to be a travesty based on how livestock is treated while alive or based on where the meat might be coming from, such as countries with exploitative labor practices. Whether or not they are right people are entitled to their own opinions.","Vegetarianism If you are irreligious does not mean that you think life has no meaning. How prejudice. My point still stands. Would you eat a dog? What about a cat? Also people have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian or not. Being a vegetarian is a choice.","THW become Vegetarians Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more \"styles\" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as \"food\". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...","I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...","The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Progressive? How would abstaining from eating meat improve our race. Vegetarianism doesn't improve positive traits that make a race strong. It doesn't make people smarter, or stronger, more sympathetic. Nor does it decrease negative traits such as illiteracy, poor judgment, or disease like cancer. Eating meat is actually considered a reason why we evolved the way we did. The hunt gave us cunning and the nutrients allowed our mothers to wean us sooner, which lead to population growth. I not only disagree with this statement but agree to the contrary. Vegetarianism would be a negative on our race and it's evolution. This is one of my sources http://www.sciencedaily.com...","The World Should Become Vegetarian However, people still crave meat, why is that? Because it's natural. If humans weren't made to eat meat they wouldn't crave it. Also, a lot of countries entire industry is built in the export or import of animal for slaughter, and raising the animals ourselves is a lot better than going out into the wild and depleting natural species. And, human consumption of meat plays a vital role in the ecosystem, we diminish overpopulating species.","Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an carnivorous (or omnivorous) one for healthy adults in modern civilization. By \"modern civilization\" I'm essentially referring to the fact that alternatives exist. We are not referring to a hunter-gatherer society where food is constantly scarce and man and beast are frequently pitted against each other in an evolutionary show down.I will be taking the PRO stance and the burden of proof is squarely on me. First round is only for acceptance and definitional qualms from Con. Additionally, although we'll try to make the debate quick as I am on a deadline - August 13th through August 20th I will have no internet access. I have made this clear and in the event that the debate does go overtime it will not count as a forfeit, but rather be continued when I come home. Regardless, I will try to respond quickly but thoroughly to meet the deadline.Good luck, Con.","The whole world should be vegan This does not include primitive tribes. I am also not saying we should force everyone to become vegan, but I am saying that if everybody in the world was vegan, we would be much better off and the world would be a much more loving place.","People should not eat animals. This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...","Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Most vegetarians fall into the lacto-ovo category: They eat only non-animal products (fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, soy, etc.), but do eat animal byproducts, such as yogurt and eggs. In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn\"t all that different from being a meat-eater. But it provides all the nutrients without killing animals. That said, following a vegetarian diet \"can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating. It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.","Vegetarianism generally helps the environment Farming animals is hugely wasteful in land – plant crops require a small part of the space to produce the same amount of calories as livestock. So if every human ate a vegetarian diet there would be no need to chop down the rainforest and ruin the land. Nor would our seas be emptied of fish and other species like dolphins and corals, which harmed by the methods used to catch them.","time to be vegetarian, why eat animals! first off I've been a meat eater all my life only cause that's how I have been raised. anyways I do love the concept and further agree that being vegetarian is the way to go. why put an innocent animal to death. others have the concept that humans are top of the food chain, is anyone truly sure that this is accurate. and picture if that isn't the case, would the meat eater then have the logic to see that he is creating a cycle in life that could be damaging to himself and others around him? imagine the Garden of Eden.","Vegetarianism I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I believe that the killing of animals for meat is wrong. This debate is about whether it is right for human beings to eat other animals.","There is no evidence that vegetarians are more compassionate \"A Case Against Vegetarianism\". Sulekha.com. Jan 23 2002 - \"if we are vegetarians, does it follow that we will be kind and compassionate? Speaking in the Indian context, it would not seem so. Looking at some sordid and conspicuous aspects of Indian society, we are anything but kind and compassionate.\"","The World Should Become Vegetarian I'll let the challenger make the first statement.","A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems. Humans with vegetarian diets are more likely to suffer from fatigue, apathetic behavior, and a lack of concentration. These could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at the site of someone's profession. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.","Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Without animals to eat, we cannot get the nutrients we need. if we did not eat animals, we would be weak and feeble! What a waste of a life.","A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word \"should\" and ditched the word \"is\". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.","Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding. \"Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.\" ??????????????? So becoming a vegetarian is immoral and wrong? I challenge that that theory..... ;)","Vegetarianism Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguing and clash, and Round 4 will be for summarization. Please abstain from semantics, introducing arguments in the last round and ad hominem attacks. Feel free to ask questions in the comments, but please do it before you accept.","Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Sure, being vegetarian is the healthiest way to live, but it isn't healthy for the environment. If we all stopped eating animals or animal products, Animals would overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. If that happens then we would have to kill mindlessly.","To Be or Not to Be... Vegetarian? I say veggo is the way to go! 101 reasons to go veg.- http://www.flex.com... Every year in the UK we feed our livestock enough food to feed 250,000,000 people while in the world 30,000,000 people die of starvation 20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater Every 3 seconds a child dies of starvation somewhere in the world If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain) If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India) Intensification in animal farming has displaced 1,000,000's of people from their traditional lands - eg. indigenous people in south & central america, native americans in north america & crofters in Great Britain - this is continuing today People displaced from their lands into cities succumb to dietary deficiency, diseases, parasites & opportunistic diseases In third world countries 1 in 10 babies die before their first birthday The UK imports �46,000,000 worth of grain from third world countries to feed our livestock Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation 1,000,000,000 people in the west gorging on meat & dairy leave 1,000,000,000 to waste away & 3,500,000,000 teeter on the brink LAND If they continue to clear American forests to raise cattle at the present rate, in 50 years there will be none left 1 acre yields 165 lbs of beef or 20,000 lbs of potatoes 8/10 of cultivated land in the UK is used to grow food for animals (14,732,000 hectares) It takes 16lbs of high protein soya to produce 1 lb of beef Since 1945 in the UK we have lost 95% of flower meadows, 50% of ancient woodlands, 40% of heathlands, 50% of wet lands & 224,000 km of hedgerows all due to animal farming Pressure on land due to meat farming leads to soil erosion 6billion tons/year in the USA If everyone went vegetarian upto 90% of land used for animal farming could be taken out of production & used to replant woodlands, leisure activities etc. 25% of Central america's forests have been destroyed for cattle grazing since 1960 Between 1966-1983 38% of the Amazon rain forest was destroyed for cattle grazing 90% of cattle ranches established on cleared forest land go bankrupt in less than 8 years as the land becomes barren due to nutrient loss & overgrazing Overgrazing by cattle is destroying the land & increasing desertification, nearly 430 million acres in the USA alone has suffered a 25-50% reduction in yield since first grazed An inch of topsoil takes 200-1000 years to develop - yet in the USA they have lost around 1/3 of their prime topsoil in 200 years (around 7 inches) due to animal farming Land will be lost due to rises in sea level due to global warming due to animal farming AIR The destruction of the rainforest by cattle farmers is destroying the lungs of the planet & reducing the worlds capacity to replenish our oxygen supply The 1,300,000,000 cattle in the world emit 60,000,000 tons of methane per year (methane is a greenhouse gas & leads to global warming) Burning of forests, grasslands & agricultural waste associated with animal farming releases 50-100,000,000 tons of methane per year Combining these figures, 25% of methane emissions are due to animal farming (not including the billions of sheep, pigs & poultry so the real figure is much higher) Fertilizer used to grow crops to feed to animals releases nitrous oxide - thought to account for 6% of the greenhouse effect Fertilizer, weedkiller & pesticides sprayed on crops enter the atmosphere creating a noxious carcinogenic cocktail CFCs are released into the air from refrigeration units used to store decomposing flesh (meat), milk & butter - CFCs are destroy the ozone layer Ammonia from animal urine also pollutes the atmosphere CO2 is released by burning oil & petrol in lorries, ships, abattoirs, dairies, factories etc. associated with meat & dairy production Emissions from large chemical plants which produce fertilizer, weedkiller & other agricultural chemicals are also poisoning our air WATER 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of wheat & 2500 gallons to produce 1lb of meat UK farm animals produce 200,000,000 tonnes of slurry (liquid excrement) every year, the majority of which ends up in our rivers Bloody waste water from abattoirs ends up in our rivers In the USA every second humans produce 12,000 lbs of effluent while farmed animals produce 250,000 lbs Nitrates & pesticides used on crops grown to feed livestock end up in our rivers Meat & dairy farming uses 70 litres of water per day per animal in the UK or 159,250,000,000 litres per year in total The water used to produce 10 lbs of steak is equivalent to the average consumption of water for an entire household for an entire year Depletion of groundwater reserves to grow crops for animals & to supply abattoirs will lead to greater water shortages Aquafers (stores of underground water) in the San Joaquin valley in the USA are being drained at the rate of 500,000,000,000 gallons/year to produce meat 18% of all agricultural land in the world is irrigated & as global warming increases (partly due to animal farming) it will cost $200,000,000 to keep these systems going The water used to produce a 1000 lb beef steer is enough to float a Destroyer battleship The liquid waste from the various parts of the meat & dairy industry flow into the rivers & from there into the seas polluting them & encouraging huge algal blooms to grow EFFICIENCY To produce 1calorie of energy from meat takes 60 calories of petrol, whereas growing grains & legumes to directly feed people produces 20 calories for each calorie of fuel used ( thats 1200 times more efficient) Meat & dairy farming uses billions of gallons of oil to run tractors, fuel ships & lorries (to move animal feed & animals), pump billions of gallons of water to irrigate fields & run slaughterhouses, power refrigeration units to prevent the corpses from decomposing & to power sewage plants to clean up some of the pollution produced Cattle convert only 6% of their energy intake (mainly grains & soya) into flesh, the remaining 94% is wasted as heat, movement (which is why they keep many animals in very close confinement), hair, bones, faeces etc 1lb of beef takes 1 gallon of petrol to produce A family of four eating beef for a year uses enough petrol to run a car for 6 months (obviously depending on how far you drive!) If the full ecological cost of meat was passed onto the consumer - the price would be quadrupled (at least) The EC spends �100,000,000's to subsidise animal production resulting in lakes of unwanted milk & mountains of unwanted meat & butter. This money could be better spent encouraging organic fruit, vegetable & grain production In the USA in 1979 145,000,000 tons of crops were fed to cattle resulting in only 21million tons of animal bodies - the cost of the wasted crops was $20,000,000,000 Between 1950 & 1985 grain production in Europe & the USA increased massively but 2/3 was fed to animals 70% of all grain is fed to animals Eating vast quantities of animal flesh, eggs, milk & butter is a luxury that most of the planet can not afford ANIMALS Fishing with drift (and other modern) nets weakens & destroys ecosystems by indiscriminately killing billions of sea creatures & disrupting the sea bed Fishermen's nets kill 10 times as many other animals as the fish they are hoping to catch Fish caught in nets die an agonising slow death of suffocation Each year 15,000,000,000 land animals are slaughtered for food & an unknown but much larger number of sea creatures (including 1000's of dolphins caught accide","Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century. 1. I would like to stand in the \"Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice.\" (Thank you for reminding me.) 2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?","Why People Should Be Vegetarian Ok I give up. I got nothing. Good debate.","Everyone should be vegetarian. Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS\"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong.\" Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?\". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets.\"Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat.\"Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?\" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;","Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?","Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think? I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian? I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.","Everyone should be vegetarian. Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources.","We should all be vegans I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. \"Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish.\" How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.","Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan I cannot argue further for this round as you have made no attempt to extend my arguments.","Vegetarianism/veganism I wish people didn't forfeit rounds..","People should eat much less meat Rules: 1. Polite conduct at all times 2. A picture or cartoon with every argument (just to be entertaining :D ) I will be arguing that people should eat a lot less meat or become vegetarian, Con will be arguing that meat is beneficial to the human diet. .. .","Animals need to be abolished. Ok so if we all go vegetarian then how are people like Justin Rivera sitting right next to you supposed to gain weight with out using the pills and shakes. huh? Also why don't we just get rid of all the unhealthy meats. All of them are not harmful to us so why go vegetarian because some meats are harmful to us? Then about people dieing from animals, if people weren't stupid and didn't swim with the sharks or try to pet bears then less people would die from animal attacks so therefore unlike what you think there are more benefits and animals then there are disadvantages.","Argument for Vegetarianism I, for one, have familiarized myself with the pros and cons of vegetarianism. I am convinced vegetarianism comes off as being much more agreeable with one's morality/conscience, health, and the world in general (i.e. could help stop world hunger and the environment). I have looked up similar debates on this site recently, and am displeased with the debates other people have waged in favor of vegetarianism. So, I shall attempt to argue my viewpoints on the subject, and hopefully it'll be a good debate.","Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once. In my opinion, kids born to vegetarian households should be allowed to try meat out. Because it is their decision if they want to eat meat or not. If they do, then when they go out to eat or over to a friends house they should be allowed to eat meat. I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat. And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it. Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian. Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit. I will get into much more detail with each of these things as the debate moves on. And once again, I'm not against people being vegetarians.","THW become Vegetarians In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.","Everyone should become a vegetarian Well, even though it IS minimal, at least it's something. One of my friends' parents own a farm, and they always wait until the animals die. Yes, they have to wait a long time, but they feel that they should. You do have a point with some of the other sources of protein there, so I won't argue with that. There is, however, another point I'd like to bring up. You don't think we should eat animals such as chicken. But what about fish? They are animals who's life is cut short for our food, yet vegetarians are still willing to eat them. I don't really agree with it being called animal cruelty. They are killed quickly and painlessly, so it can't really be cruelty. Cruelty is when the animals are tortured and in pain, or not being fed. The animals are fed, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough meat on them.","Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals third of all human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals fourth of all many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons","Vegetarianism I am a vegetarian, and in looking at people's profiles I noticed that a lot of people seem to be against vegetarianism. Would someone who is against it please debate me on this and explain why? I don't understand how you can be against people choosing not to eat animals.","go vegetarian Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning","Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!","Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. I accept your challenge, Although I believe in the pro, I will try and argue for the con","Should the whole world become vegan if you want an animal overpopulated world then go ahead get diesease","humans should endeavour to become a vegan species I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, “We should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?” http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.","Vegetarianism Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.","The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.","Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation. I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources: https://www.vegsoc.org...","Funny jokes. Now, if anyone here is ethically opposed to eating meat, there is a vegetarian option. You can f*** off.","A healthy debate for two. I will accept. Lets make our topic becoming vegetarians. I will be Pro and you will be Con.","Vegetarianism I may be a right winger but i think it is great if someone wants to be a vegetarian. Also its great and honorable to treat animals with the love and respect they deserve.","Vegetarianism If humans are animals, why defy our animalistic instincts?","The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. \"I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got \" Too \" big for the current food market\" Yes, the market will adapt as the population increases, but there's only so much a market can adapt before it starts to run out of raw material. Space is already such a big issue in food production, that meat production accounts for 70% of all amazon deforestation. Whats more, land cleared for intensive cattle farming uses up vast amounts of water every day, far more water than if the same space of land was used for arable farming. Food manufacture is one of the most water intensive activities in the world and it takes far less water to produce plants than meat. \"I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities.\" I find it very hard to believe that there would be any difference in the amount of staff needed for growing crops compared with cattle. The meat production industry could be re-modelled to produce plant based foods over hundreds of years, meaning no jobs would be lost. \"Iron and protein tablets would become like oil\" Iron and protein are actually very easy to find in a vegetarian diet, and its hardly likely that an all-controlling supplements industry would spring up since their products wouldn't really be needed any more than they already are. So, in answer to your question; no, it doesn't seem like a better world, it just doesn't seem very likely.","Everyone should become a vegetarian Just need help with the possible arguments","Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.","go vegetarian There are problems with being vegetarian","go vegetarian Being vegetarian helps the environment","Should the whole world become vegan No eet meet it sin say bibl an gret spoogity monser maed ov meet bol an so no eet is sinn hile kuthulu im 12","Should People Become Vegetarian While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn\"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food.","Everyone should become a vegetarian But because of everyone that eats meat there is a huge effect on the animals. Not only are they killed but also for e.g. Chickens are fed steroids and other harmful chemicals in order for them to grow fast enough to sustain our wants. There are some chickens who are built so much out of chemicals that they don't even have heads yet can produce eggs. This isn't natural. Animals are being harms because of our selfishness. Therefore by making everyone vegetarian we will stop this cruelty to animals.","Humans should be vegetarians. I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that \"humans should become vegetarian\" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that \"vegetarian\" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word \"should\" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.","People should stop eating meat. One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.","Vegetarianism is a good idea. However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.","Humans should be vegetarians. Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.","The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got \" Too \" big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?","Why People Should Be Vegetarian Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.","Everyone should be vegetarian. Animals have feelings, and they should be treated like equals. They have souls, and thoughts, and emotions. They do not deserve to be killed for the sake of being turned into a cheap, greasy hamburger. There could be more jobs created, because the demand for tofu and other protein sources would go up. There would be less poverty because of theses jobs, and they would pay more. Soybeans and other legumes have just as much protein as a variety of meat sources.","People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.","The World Should Become Vegetarian Vegetarianism is much more \"natural\" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.","The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.","Should the whole world become vegan We stil kil anmal jus 4 funn sais the bibl","Humans should be vegetarians. Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!","Everyone should be vegetarian. I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)","Everyone should be vegetarian. In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty."],"string":"[\n \"Vegetarianism is a good idea. Thank you to Leekatya for what looks to be a promising and respectful debate. Good luck to you. I'd like to start out by stating my position on the subject of vegetarianism. While I certainly don't think it is bad, I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone who wants to (or does) include meat in their diets and believe that that position can be supported from both an ethical and health perspective. I will attempt to prove that an omnivorous diet is just as good, if not better than a vegetarian lifestyle. I will start by addressing some of Leekatya's comments and adding support for my position. \\\"...most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians.\\\" Before commenting on this statement, I need you to provide me with reasons as to why you believe it is wrong in order that your concerns can be properly addressed. Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position? \\\"According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease.\\\" I did google KEDEM, but did not find any results for vegetarian research. Perhaps you could supply a link for that? The information that did come up, however, seemed to contradict at least one of those points. According to a study done by the JAMA Internal Medicine, \\\"Eating plant foods didn't seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure.\\\" 1 As for diabetes and heart disease, when they are caused by dietary issues, it often stems from an imbalanced nutrition. Meat eating is not the primary cause of such diseases, but rather (and note the difference) *too much* meat can play a role. As with everything, moderation is the key. Just because someone eats more meat than is healthy for them and they get sick does not mean that the solution is to abstain from it entirely. \\\"Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \\\"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\\\" \\\" An important point to mention here is that a primary concern of those who don't eat meat is health. *Which means that they are already aware and conscious of health issues in general*. It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not. Of course they are! When someone is proactively taking steps towards a specific goal, they will be more likely to achieve it than someone who does not. While people who exercise have a greater chance of being healthy, that does not by definition mean someone who does not exercise is not healthy. So too with vegetarianism. And proof of the fact that vegetarians are more conscious about a healthy lifestyle is the following statistic: \\\"75 percent of vegans abstain from alcohol, as opposed to 8 percent of omnivores; 94 percent abstain from smoking, as opposed to 67 percent of omnivores; and 80 percent of vegetarians exercise in their free time compared to 70 percent of omnivores.\\\"2 (it is significant to note in those statistics that only about 5% of Americans identify as vegetarians. 3) All those factors, especially abstinence from smoking also contribute to being healthier in regards to disease. And once again, just to reiterate my point, the above simply means that vegetarians are more conscious about living a healthy lifestyle. It reflects a lifestyle but does not mean that the plant-eating itself is what causes one to be healthy. Though I personally have no problem with people being vegetarians, for the sake of completeness here is an argument concerning health issues in a vegetarian lifestyle: The lack of certain nutrients in plant-based foods requires many a vegetarian to take additional supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, just to name a few. If a vegetarian lifestyle was truly what we were intended to be living by, we would be able to source all the necessary nutrients in plants. In addition, studies have shown that there is a slightly lower bone mineral density in vegetarians as opposed to omnivores. 4 Thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me and I look forward to your response. Here are my sources, in order: 1) http://www.news-medical.net... 2) http://weanuhaske.wordpress.com... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org... 4) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...\",\n \"Ben Should Become a Vegetarian 1. The other options I speak of are technological breakthroughs in resource management across the board. Too few people are going to change their eating habits in time, the issue will necessarily blow up on us as it has to in order to enact real change, and the concept here I'm pointing out is a form of \\\"strategic failing.\\\" The cultural conversation might more easily shift from \\\"eat differently\\\" to \\\"how should we expect our legislatures to invest\\\". 2. A \\\"non-meat majority\\\" on the food pyramid doesn't make the minority go away any more than this would justify making laws that help only white people because another ethnicity is in the minority. 3a. Simply alternating between veggie and meat friendly places would be a good compromise since as I pointed out the strain is symmetrical. I'm not aware of all the other veggie centric options when going out to eat. I do sympathize with the plight of having limited options on many menus. 3b. I'm not necessarily talking about me, but it would be easier to be more pro-active on the political front than change my desires for meat consumption. Those who are able, driven, and willing should definitely pursue this particular issue in the realm of political change. Important decisions on how to spend our tax dollars to make the world a better place need to be made. There are many big political issues (perhaps too many) that require this kind of attention and those who have the capacity to specialize in each one need to make certain kinds of change amicable to the average person who may share the same values to whatever degree, but can't reasonably be expected to always do something about it. 3c. ...\",\n \"Pro's choice First my opponent attacks nutrition, and protein. Other than meats, there is not a lot of protein in foods such as nuts. Besides, using cause and effect, beCAUSE people will turn to vegetarianism, less people will eat the animals designed to be eaten by humans, thus increasing the amount of cattle, poultry, and pig/hog (whatever you want to call pork), without increasing the amount of room/their food. By doing that, you cause their population to dramatically drop, due to starvation. My opponent says that medication is not natural, when some of it is. The Native Americans used to make medication from plants, with no artificial flavors or benefits, so I can see that medication is sometimes natural. To this day you can find natural medicines for almost anything. . http://naturalmedications.com... This is a lot more natural than going against what we are. As I have stated humans are designed to eat both plants and meats, therefore, it is only natural for us to eat such foods. My opponent's next argument is that vegetarianism is more moral than eating meat. How would it be against our morals to eat what was intended for us to eat? Would it not be more immoral than to let the offspring suffer, and starve, due to the fact there is more of them than there is hunters of them? Why would letting living breathing creatures, their due in at least living a productive life? No it is not like watching cocks fight, or any other animal. If most of us become vegetarians than that would be like watching animals kill each other for fun, my reasoning is the fact that I have brought up twice, that if the population suddenly is not hunted as much, they will make the same number of offspring, and less food, which btw is plants for most of the animals listed, sometimes nuts in the case of poultry. This link is 10 reasons why man is not a vegearian, please read it. It is the rest of my arguement for this round. . http://bodybuilding.com... Thank you ladies and gentlemen.\",\n \"Should Humans Eat Meat I have been raised eating meat my whole life. My dad, step dad, mom, grandpa, grandma were all hunters and lived off meat they have killed them selves. I have tried to go vegan/vegetarian two times. I tried both time for about 3 months and both time I had head aches all day, and near the end, both time, I started shaking. So who the hell do you think you are calling us selfish and ignorant. I do not agree with \\\"chicken farms,\\\" or harming animals for no cause, but you went over the top. I have tried to stop, because once I thought that it was wrong to kill animals for food, but I did my research and found WE WERE MADE TO EAT MEAT! MEAT IS HEALTHY! I'm not telling you to start eating meat! Being vegan is great. But don't go around calling names when you don't know the other point of view.\",\n \"It is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products. We should eat five or six portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but without adding some meat or fish it is hard to make sure our body is getting the protein and iron it needs to be healthy. It might be OK for adults to choose a vegetarian diet for themselves, but should we allow vegetarian parents to impose such a diet on their babies? Meats are an easy and reliable source of protein, an essential building-block for the human body.\",\n \"Why People Should Be Vegetarian We kill plants but we know it's wrong. Plants are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those plants are in need of help. We need to stop eating plants so we can save more plants in the near future. See, it works this way too.\",\n \"Going Vegan Thank you for the great debate topic. Pro's definition of veganism is that of the ethical vegan, which is the orthodox side of veganism. Other types of veganism exist such as dietary veganism, where the reasons for becoming a vegan are more for personal health benefits rather than for the salvation of animals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would class the dietary vegans in somewhat of a conservative or reformed type of veganism. Some ethical (orthodox) vegans do not like dietary vegans to be called real vegans because they aren't fully converted to the full vegan lifestyle. http://www.theveganwoman.com... You'll see me draw several parallels between veganism and religion in my arguments as I will show that vegansim is very much a type of religion. It's not a religion that touches the subject of God, but its a religion where the orthodox adherents must not waver in their vegan beliefs or actions unless they are to be ridiculed and excommunicated from the community of orthodox vegans. I hold that every person should have the freedom to do what they choose, live the life they want to live, and live with the positive or negative consequences of their decisions. Pro's argument is that \\\"people should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle, and that way we don't harm or kill animals.\\\" In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by \\\"people.\\\" Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take \\\"people\\\" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.\",\n \"A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans. Meat (and dairy) eaters eat unhealthily as they take in far too much fat, protein and cholesterol, and often far too little fibre and vitamins. Eating a varied range of cereals, fruits, nuts and vegetables is a delicious way of getting all the vitamins, minerals, fibre and protein your body needs.\",\n \"go vegetarian Humans can choose their own nutrition plan\",\n \"The World Should Become Vegetarian My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.\",\n \"Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)\",\n \"Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Thank you for accepting the challenge. Here is a list of the arguments I will outline in the following paragraphs. 1)Health benefits of being vegetarian. 2)Global benefits of vegetarianism. 3)Environmental benefits of vegetarianism. 4)The ethical question behind eating meat. Argument 1: There are numerous health benefits that a vegetarian diet can have. First of all, studies have shown that vegetarians are at least %25 less likely to contract chronic heart conditions, the biggest killer in America. Heart disease has plagued western civilization since the dawning of mankind, and perhaps a vegetarian diet is one of the keys to a final solution. Vegetarianism is healthy for the cardiovascular system as it reduces the amount of animal fats and cholesterol that people consume, instead replacing it with antioxidants and fiber. Furthermore, vegetarianism has been linked to a decrease in the likelihood of getting cancers. A study in Germany found that vegetarians have a decreased likelihood of getting colon cancer, for one. Lastly, vegetarian diets have been shown to help people lose weight, which explains why there are very few obese vegetarians out there. The diet essentially decreases the amount of saturated fats and excessive calories that people consume. Meat has very condensed calories, and our brains simply can\\\"t figure out when we are full until about 20 minutes after our stomachs say ENOUGH. So condensed calories, plus a brain that can\\\"t read if we are full or not fast enough, essentially spells out bad news for the bathroom scales. Plants, on the other hand, have very minimal amounts of calories, meaning that more of them can be consumed without causing weight gain. The major issue that people have with a vegetarian diet is the belief that vegetarianism can be linked to nutrient deficiencies, and in some cases, this is true; however, when the diet is well planned out well, then malnutrition rarely poses much of an issue. The major nutrients that vegetarians lack are vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and protein. The only one of these nutrients that cannot be found in plants is vitamin B12; however, this is found in many supplements available to essentially everyone. Many people say that iron cannot be taken from plants as animals have a different kind of iron known as heme-iron; however, this is simply not true. Although it is harder for our bodies to process iron from plants, it can still be done fairly easily and efficiently, and for the person who can\\\"t process it, there are cruelty-free supplements of heme-iron out there as well. In summary, if the vegetarian diet is planned out well, the effects can be remarkable, including lower risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer. Argument 2: A vegetarian diet can have many positive effects on many current, global issues. A recent study found that nearly %40 of corn and %67 of soy produced in the United States is going towards raising livestock for the meat and dairy industry, essentially meaning that about 13 pounds of grain goes into one pound of edible meat. Doesn\\\"t add up, right? In a society where approximately 805 million people live in starvation, does it really make sense to essentially throw away that much food? No, it doesn\\\"t. But it gets a lot worse than that. Not only is food thrown away to the livestock industry, but water too. We\\\"re talking about the raising of over 56 billion farm animals every year. That\\\"s a lot of water. To put it into statistics, that\\\"s about %27 of the freshwater deficit. Thus, vegetarianism not only has a positive effect on an individual\\\"s health, but also the current state of global affairs. Argument 3: The livestock industry has a horrible effect on the environment that only a vegetarian diet can really fix. Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce about 89,000 pounds of excrement per second. Where does it all go, then? Well many places, places that people probably don\\\"t want feces. One of the ways to dispose of waste is to sell it as fertilizer, and all though this makes apples in the supermarket extra sweet and juicy, it also causes a run-off effect. This means that when it rains or water is sprayed on the area, the excrement flows into surrounding rivers and lakes where it kills fish and other wildlife. The other disposal method is throwing the excrement into lagoons and waiting for it to decompose. This too causes a seeping effect. So what does seeping actually do? The EPA reported that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid hog urine and feces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14 million fish died as an immediate result. Aside from water, animals grown for livestock also contaminate the air. A Consumer Union Study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the United States produce approximately 14 million pounds of particle dust each year, dust that contains harmful pathogens and toxins. Another way that the livestock industry gets rid of animal feces is turning it into a mist like substance and having it carried away by the wind. Unfortunately, unsuspecting citizens of neighboring towns inhale this toxic air and can become severely sick from it. There really isn\\\"t a way to stop the industry from doing this, as what are their other options, contaminating more water and damaging the environment even more? The only real way to ensure that these horrible things don\\\"t happen is to cut all funding to the meat and dairy industry by going vegetarian or vegan. Argument 4: Whether or not it is right to kill an animal for the purpose of meat has been an ethical question for decades. The simple fact is that no, it isn\\\"t. Nature dictates that killing an animal is okay when it is absolutely necessary. This is usually not the case with people. The simple fact of the matter is that in the general population, meat is consumed because of convenience and taste; however, what most people don\\\"t realize is that the animals that the animals that they eat once had a face, a mother, maybe a son or daughter. We know that animals feel familial connections maybe even stronger than people do, so the idea of a baby calf being torn from its mother\\\"s arms only moments after birth to be shipped off to some veal factory is simply horrendous. Or, it can be spun the other way, where the mother is torn away to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. To cause an animal so much pain for the sake of a hamburger or a piece of steak is simply wrong and unethical. What a vegetarian diet does is stand up for the animals and essentially say that people don\\\"t want to be a part of such cruelty. Furthermore, the meat industry has shown time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be allowed to care for animals. It seems like every month a new case of animal abuse comes out. Two months ago it was chickens drowning in their own feces, while last month it was ducks being forced to walk on wire floors, breaking their feet and smashing their faces against the iron wiring. These cases pop up all the time and no matter how many lawsuits are filed, nothing changes. The only way to fully end this kind of cruelty is to go vegetarian and stop giving money to torcher. In summary, vegetarian diets have many positive effects on everything from a person\\\"s diet, to the state of issues like world hunger and pollution.\",\n \"Humans can kill and eat animals Humans should be allowed to kill and eat animals. Humans have fought their way to the top of the food chain for tens of thousands of years, and there is no reason why this should stop. Life is not possible without death. When I die, my assets will be given up to those who inherit them, likewise with animals. Whilst I believe that people have the right to be vegetarians, I honestly believe that if it is due to the natural view that people shouldn't kill animals because it is unethical, then they are wrong. Whilst I have physically seen some slaughterhouses, and their terrible conditions, I believe that it is human nature to kill animals, and thus, so long as animals are treated with compassion and given space, there is nothing wrong with killing animals. If you go to the savannah in Africa, you will discover that some animals cannot defend themselves anyway from wild predators. The same is likewise in our society. Furthermore, in developing nations, it is very important for the economy that animals are killed, (e.g. whilst there is deforestation in many nations like Brazil to make space to farm animals, a huge amount of investment comes through from large firms, such as McDonald's, thus boosting GDP). Finally, vegetarian diets naturally lack vitamin B-12, which has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system. Some vegans have been led to serious health problems.\",\n \"Ben Should Become a Vegetarian 1. I don't consume much red meat to begin with and that is creating the largest issue on your first graph. You still consume dairy products and that creates a much larger issue (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) than how much chicken I eat (which would be more than my consumption of red meat by far). You link to an article about the UN conducting a study on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, yet that is dated. The UN admitted to important flaws in the report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and concludes instead: \\\"efforts should be focused on \\\"smarter farming, not less farming\\\". There will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques and invent new geo-engineering technologies than to change our meat eating habits and so as a culture pursuing the former rather than the latter is a better use of time and effort. 2. That study is commenting on the question of whether vegetarian diets are feasible and noting those health benefits. That doesn't invalidate every other kind of diet. 3A. This is just as much an argument for you to become an omnivore again, as it is for me to convert to your diet. Our culture simply has more meat options and the practical strain argument would seem to lean in my favor. 3B. There is reduced moral strain when we recognize the realistic limits of what we can do. We are not in a particularly potent position of pushing forward for new geo-engineering technologies or farming techniques that will have the most impact on issues like climate change and resource management. We can promote education as local activists instead and when politicians are running on the right issues we can vote them in as well as collectively pressure for those policies. 3C. This is your most tempting proposal, but I'm afraid there are still plenty of ways to make our friends suffer under the tyranny of our joint cuteness. ;)\",\n \"Pro's choice Vegatarianism The deffinition: http://en.wikipedia.org... Strict Vegetarianism does not give one all of the nutritional things that humans need to survive. Even with the vegie-burgers and tofu, among other things do not give enough substancial protein to live on. It is also unnatural unnatural, meaning something that does not happen naturally, naturally meaning, found in nature. Yes some animals are herbavores, but humans are omnivores meaning, they are not herbavores, nor carnavores, but they need plant and animal food to survive. Our bodies need both meat and vegtables in order to function properly. Example: Bears are omnivores as well. how often have you seen a bear in noture, not eat fish? Yes it eats berries, as well, as an omnivore should. However, the bear cannot live a very healthy life. Thus humans cannot live a life soley on fruits and vegtables. We as the race of humanity need to live as naturally as we can, thus Vegetarianism is an abomination of our sociaty. I have more arguements but save them for the round 2 of this debate (or round 3 if you prefer)\",\n \"Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat A few reasons why vegetarianism is not just a \\\"bad excuse to not eat meat\\\".ReligionSome religions such as many Hindu sects, and Jainism require vegetarianism. Religion is a matter of personal belief. Some people derive great meaning and purpose from religion. A person who is a vegetarian because of their religion does not just have a \\\"bad excuse to not eat meat\\\".Personal Feelings/PsychologyEverybody has their personal feelings about things. A person might think eating intestines or liver or dog is disgusting. Why? It just really comes down to how the person feels. Some people might see meat and think of the animal getting slaughtered while eating it. I don't, but some people might and if I did I probably would be a vegetarian. Some people's personal feelings might be such that they have a psychological need to be a vegetarian and trying not to be would hurt their psychological health.Taste BudsEverybody has different taste buds. Some people might just find that they don't like the taste of meat.Dietary NeedsA planned vegetarian diet can have some health benefits. There is less risk of problems associated with the consumption of meat. Protein can be substituted with soy, beans, and nuts. Many vegetarians also drink milk and eat eggs. It is not necessary to be a vegan in order to be a vegetarian. Some people might even adopt a vegetarian diet to help them in achieving something, such as athletics.http://www.nomeatathlete.com...In some cases vegetarianism is recommended for medical treatment, such as with some cases of rheumatoid arthritis.http://www.pcrm.org...Food SafetySome underdeveloped countries have poor sanitation and the people are too poor to affoard modern appliances to keep food clean. Keeping meat sanitary and free of infection may be difficult and there may be many diseases such as E. Coli that a person could catch. In fact that's still an occassional problem in developed countries, although it is easier for us to take measures to make sure it is ok if we cook it. If a person is legitimately concerned about getting infected that's a good reason to be a vegetarian.Political ConcernsPeople have their own political beliefs that may play into the decision. A person might not even think meat should be illegal, but consider the way the meat industry is run today to be a travesty based on how livestock is treated while alive or based on where the meat might be coming from, such as countries with exploitative labor practices. Whether or not they are right people are entitled to their own opinions.\",\n \"Vegetarianism If you are irreligious does not mean that you think life has no meaning. How prejudice. My point still stands. Would you eat a dog? What about a cat? Also people have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian or not. Being a vegetarian is a choice.\",\n \"THW become Vegetarians Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more \\\"styles\\\" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as \\\"food\\\". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...\",\n \"I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...\",\n \"The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Progressive? How would abstaining from eating meat improve our race. Vegetarianism doesn't improve positive traits that make a race strong. It doesn't make people smarter, or stronger, more sympathetic. Nor does it decrease negative traits such as illiteracy, poor judgment, or disease like cancer. Eating meat is actually considered a reason why we evolved the way we did. The hunt gave us cunning and the nutrients allowed our mothers to wean us sooner, which lead to population growth. I not only disagree with this statement but agree to the contrary. Vegetarianism would be a negative on our race and it's evolution. This is one of my sources http://www.sciencedaily.com...\",\n \"The World Should Become Vegetarian However, people still crave meat, why is that? Because it's natural. If humans weren't made to eat meat they wouldn't crave it. Also, a lot of countries entire industry is built in the export or import of animal for slaughter, and raising the animals ourselves is a lot better than going out into the wild and depleting natural species. And, human consumption of meat plays a vital role in the ecosystem, we diminish overpopulating species.\",\n \"Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an carnivorous (or omnivorous) one for healthy adults in modern civilization. By \\\"modern civilization\\\" I'm essentially referring to the fact that alternatives exist. We are not referring to a hunter-gatherer society where food is constantly scarce and man and beast are frequently pitted against each other in an evolutionary show down.I will be taking the PRO stance and the burden of proof is squarely on me. First round is only for acceptance and definitional qualms from Con. Additionally, although we'll try to make the debate quick as I am on a deadline - August 13th through August 20th I will have no internet access. I have made this clear and in the event that the debate does go overtime it will not count as a forfeit, but rather be continued when I come home. Regardless, I will try to respond quickly but thoroughly to meet the deadline.Good luck, Con.\",\n \"The whole world should be vegan This does not include primitive tribes. I am also not saying we should force everyone to become vegan, but I am saying that if everybody in the world was vegan, we would be much better off and the world would be a much more loving place.\",\n \"People should not eat animals. This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...\",\n \"Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Most vegetarians fall into the lacto-ovo category: They eat only non-animal products (fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, soy, etc.), but do eat animal byproducts, such as yogurt and eggs. In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn\\\"t all that different from being a meat-eater. But it provides all the nutrients without killing animals. That said, following a vegetarian diet \\\"can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating. It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.\",\n \"Vegetarianism generally helps the environment Farming animals is hugely wasteful in land – plant crops require a small part of the space to produce the same amount of calories as livestock. So if every human ate a vegetarian diet there would be no need to chop down the rainforest and ruin the land. Nor would our seas be emptied of fish and other species like dolphins and corals, which harmed by the methods used to catch them.\",\n \"time to be vegetarian, why eat animals! first off I've been a meat eater all my life only cause that's how I have been raised. anyways I do love the concept and further agree that being vegetarian is the way to go. why put an innocent animal to death. others have the concept that humans are top of the food chain, is anyone truly sure that this is accurate. and picture if that isn't the case, would the meat eater then have the logic to see that he is creating a cycle in life that could be damaging to himself and others around him? imagine the Garden of Eden.\",\n \"Vegetarianism I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I believe that the killing of animals for meat is wrong. This debate is about whether it is right for human beings to eat other animals.\",\n \"There is no evidence that vegetarians are more compassionate \\\"A Case Against Vegetarianism\\\". Sulekha.com. Jan 23 2002 - \\\"if we are vegetarians, does it follow that we will be kind and compassionate? Speaking in the Indian context, it would not seem so. Looking at some sordid and conspicuous aspects of Indian society, we are anything but kind and compassionate.\\\"\",\n \"The World Should Become Vegetarian I'll let the challenger make the first statement.\",\n \"A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems. Humans with vegetarian diets are more likely to suffer from fatigue, apathetic behavior, and a lack of concentration. These could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at the site of someone's profession. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.\",\n \"Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Without animals to eat, we cannot get the nutrients we need. if we did not eat animals, we would be weak and feeble! What a waste of a life.\",\n \"A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word \\\"should\\\" and ditched the word \\\"is\\\". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.\",\n \"Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding. \\\"Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.\\\" ??????????????? So becoming a vegetarian is immoral and wrong? I challenge that that theory..... ;)\",\n \"Vegetarianism Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguing and clash, and Round 4 will be for summarization. Please abstain from semantics, introducing arguments in the last round and ad hominem attacks. Feel free to ask questions in the comments, but please do it before you accept.\",\n \"Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Sure, being vegetarian is the healthiest way to live, but it isn't healthy for the environment. If we all stopped eating animals or animal products, Animals would overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. If that happens then we would have to kill mindlessly.\",\n \"To Be or Not to Be... Vegetarian? I say veggo is the way to go! 101 reasons to go veg.- http://www.flex.com... Every year in the UK we feed our livestock enough food to feed 250,000,000 people while in the world 30,000,000 people die of starvation 20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater Every 3 seconds a child dies of starvation somewhere in the world If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain) If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India) Intensification in animal farming has displaced 1,000,000's of people from their traditional lands - eg. indigenous people in south & central america, native americans in north america & crofters in Great Britain - this is continuing today People displaced from their lands into cities succumb to dietary deficiency, diseases, parasites & opportunistic diseases In third world countries 1 in 10 babies die before their first birthday The UK imports �46,000,000 worth of grain from third world countries to feed our livestock Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation 1,000,000,000 people in the west gorging on meat & dairy leave 1,000,000,000 to waste away & 3,500,000,000 teeter on the brink LAND If they continue to clear American forests to raise cattle at the present rate, in 50 years there will be none left 1 acre yields 165 lbs of beef or 20,000 lbs of potatoes 8/10 of cultivated land in the UK is used to grow food for animals (14,732,000 hectares) It takes 16lbs of high protein soya to produce 1 lb of beef Since 1945 in the UK we have lost 95% of flower meadows, 50% of ancient woodlands, 40% of heathlands, 50% of wet lands & 224,000 km of hedgerows all due to animal farming Pressure on land due to meat farming leads to soil erosion 6billion tons/year in the USA If everyone went vegetarian upto 90% of land used for animal farming could be taken out of production & used to replant woodlands, leisure activities etc. 25% of Central america's forests have been destroyed for cattle grazing since 1960 Between 1966-1983 38% of the Amazon rain forest was destroyed for cattle grazing 90% of cattle ranches established on cleared forest land go bankrupt in less than 8 years as the land becomes barren due to nutrient loss & overgrazing Overgrazing by cattle is destroying the land & increasing desertification, nearly 430 million acres in the USA alone has suffered a 25-50% reduction in yield since first grazed An inch of topsoil takes 200-1000 years to develop - yet in the USA they have lost around 1/3 of their prime topsoil in 200 years (around 7 inches) due to animal farming Land will be lost due to rises in sea level due to global warming due to animal farming AIR The destruction of the rainforest by cattle farmers is destroying the lungs of the planet & reducing the worlds capacity to replenish our oxygen supply The 1,300,000,000 cattle in the world emit 60,000,000 tons of methane per year (methane is a greenhouse gas & leads to global warming) Burning of forests, grasslands & agricultural waste associated with animal farming releases 50-100,000,000 tons of methane per year Combining these figures, 25% of methane emissions are due to animal farming (not including the billions of sheep, pigs & poultry so the real figure is much higher) Fertilizer used to grow crops to feed to animals releases nitrous oxide - thought to account for 6% of the greenhouse effect Fertilizer, weedkiller & pesticides sprayed on crops enter the atmosphere creating a noxious carcinogenic cocktail CFCs are released into the air from refrigeration units used to store decomposing flesh (meat), milk & butter - CFCs are destroy the ozone layer Ammonia from animal urine also pollutes the atmosphere CO2 is released by burning oil & petrol in lorries, ships, abattoirs, dairies, factories etc. associated with meat & dairy production Emissions from large chemical plants which produce fertilizer, weedkiller & other agricultural chemicals are also poisoning our air WATER 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of wheat & 2500 gallons to produce 1lb of meat UK farm animals produce 200,000,000 tonnes of slurry (liquid excrement) every year, the majority of which ends up in our rivers Bloody waste water from abattoirs ends up in our rivers In the USA every second humans produce 12,000 lbs of effluent while farmed animals produce 250,000 lbs Nitrates & pesticides used on crops grown to feed livestock end up in our rivers Meat & dairy farming uses 70 litres of water per day per animal in the UK or 159,250,000,000 litres per year in total The water used to produce 10 lbs of steak is equivalent to the average consumption of water for an entire household for an entire year Depletion of groundwater reserves to grow crops for animals & to supply abattoirs will lead to greater water shortages Aquafers (stores of underground water) in the San Joaquin valley in the USA are being drained at the rate of 500,000,000,000 gallons/year to produce meat 18% of all agricultural land in the world is irrigated & as global warming increases (partly due to animal farming) it will cost $200,000,000 to keep these systems going The water used to produce a 1000 lb beef steer is enough to float a Destroyer battleship The liquid waste from the various parts of the meat & dairy industry flow into the rivers & from there into the seas polluting them & encouraging huge algal blooms to grow EFFICIENCY To produce 1calorie of energy from meat takes 60 calories of petrol, whereas growing grains & legumes to directly feed people produces 20 calories for each calorie of fuel used ( thats 1200 times more efficient) Meat & dairy farming uses billions of gallons of oil to run tractors, fuel ships & lorries (to move animal feed & animals), pump billions of gallons of water to irrigate fields & run slaughterhouses, power refrigeration units to prevent the corpses from decomposing & to power sewage plants to clean up some of the pollution produced Cattle convert only 6% of their energy intake (mainly grains & soya) into flesh, the remaining 94% is wasted as heat, movement (which is why they keep many animals in very close confinement), hair, bones, faeces etc 1lb of beef takes 1 gallon of petrol to produce A family of four eating beef for a year uses enough petrol to run a car for 6 months (obviously depending on how far you drive!) If the full ecological cost of meat was passed onto the consumer - the price would be quadrupled (at least) The EC spends �100,000,000's to subsidise animal production resulting in lakes of unwanted milk & mountains of unwanted meat & butter. This money could be better spent encouraging organic fruit, vegetable & grain production In the USA in 1979 145,000,000 tons of crops were fed to cattle resulting in only 21million tons of animal bodies - the cost of the wasted crops was $20,000,000,000 Between 1950 & 1985 grain production in Europe & the USA increased massively but 2/3 was fed to animals 70% of all grain is fed to animals Eating vast quantities of animal flesh, eggs, milk & butter is a luxury that most of the planet can not afford ANIMALS Fishing with drift (and other modern) nets weakens & destroys ecosystems by indiscriminately killing billions of sea creatures & disrupting the sea bed Fishermen's nets kill 10 times as many other animals as the fish they are hoping to catch Fish caught in nets die an agonising slow death of suffocation Each year 15,000,000,000 land animals are slaughtered for food & an unknown but much larger number of sea creatures (including 1000's of dolphins caught accide\",\n \"Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century. 1. I would like to stand in the \\\"Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice.\\\" (Thank you for reminding me.) 2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?\",\n \"Why People Should Be Vegetarian Ok I give up. I got nothing. Good debate.\",\n \"Everyone should be vegetarian. Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS\\\"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong.\\\" Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?\\\". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets.\\\"Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat.\\\"Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?\\\" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;\",\n \"Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?\",\n \"Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think? I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian? I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.\",\n \"Everyone should be vegetarian. Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources.\",\n \"We should all be vegans I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. \\\"Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish.\\\" How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.\",\n \"Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan I cannot argue further for this round as you have made no attempt to extend my arguments.\",\n \"Vegetarianism/veganism I wish people didn't forfeit rounds..\",\n \"People should eat much less meat Rules: 1. Polite conduct at all times 2. A picture or cartoon with every argument (just to be entertaining :D ) I will be arguing that people should eat a lot less meat or become vegetarian, Con will be arguing that meat is beneficial to the human diet. .. .\",\n \"Animals need to be abolished. Ok so if we all go vegetarian then how are people like Justin Rivera sitting right next to you supposed to gain weight with out using the pills and shakes. huh? Also why don't we just get rid of all the unhealthy meats. All of them are not harmful to us so why go vegetarian because some meats are harmful to us? Then about people dieing from animals, if people weren't stupid and didn't swim with the sharks or try to pet bears then less people would die from animal attacks so therefore unlike what you think there are more benefits and animals then there are disadvantages.\",\n \"Argument for Vegetarianism I, for one, have familiarized myself with the pros and cons of vegetarianism. I am convinced vegetarianism comes off as being much more agreeable with one's morality/conscience, health, and the world in general (i.e. could help stop world hunger and the environment). I have looked up similar debates on this site recently, and am displeased with the debates other people have waged in favor of vegetarianism. So, I shall attempt to argue my viewpoints on the subject, and hopefully it'll be a good debate.\",\n \"Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once. In my opinion, kids born to vegetarian households should be allowed to try meat out. Because it is their decision if they want to eat meat or not. If they do, then when they go out to eat or over to a friends house they should be allowed to eat meat. I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat. And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it. Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian. Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit. I will get into much more detail with each of these things as the debate moves on. And once again, I'm not against people being vegetarians.\",\n \"THW become Vegetarians In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.\",\n \"Everyone should become a vegetarian Well, even though it IS minimal, at least it's something. One of my friends' parents own a farm, and they always wait until the animals die. Yes, they have to wait a long time, but they feel that they should. You do have a point with some of the other sources of protein there, so I won't argue with that. There is, however, another point I'd like to bring up. You don't think we should eat animals such as chicken. But what about fish? They are animals who's life is cut short for our food, yet vegetarians are still willing to eat them. I don't really agree with it being called animal cruelty. They are killed quickly and painlessly, so it can't really be cruelty. Cruelty is when the animals are tortured and in pain, or not being fed. The animals are fed, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough meat on them.\",\n \"Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals third of all human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals fourth of all many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons\",\n \"Vegetarianism I am a vegetarian, and in looking at people's profiles I noticed that a lot of people seem to be against vegetarianism. Would someone who is against it please debate me on this and explain why? I don't understand how you can be against people choosing not to eat animals.\",\n \"go vegetarian Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning\",\n \"Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!\",\n \"Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. I accept your challenge, Although I believe in the pro, I will try and argue for the con\",\n \"Should the whole world become vegan if you want an animal overpopulated world then go ahead get diesease\",\n \"humans should endeavour to become a vegan species I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, “We should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?” http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.\",\n \"Vegetarianism Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.\",\n \"The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.\",\n \"Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation. I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources: https://www.vegsoc.org...\",\n \"Funny jokes. Now, if anyone here is ethically opposed to eating meat, there is a vegetarian option. You can f*** off.\",\n \"A healthy debate for two. I will accept. Lets make our topic becoming vegetarians. I will be Pro and you will be Con.\",\n \"Vegetarianism I may be a right winger but i think it is great if someone wants to be a vegetarian. Also its great and honorable to treat animals with the love and respect they deserve.\",\n \"Vegetarianism If humans are animals, why defy our animalistic instincts?\",\n \"The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. \\\"I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got \\\" Too \\\" big for the current food market\\\" Yes, the market will adapt as the population increases, but there's only so much a market can adapt before it starts to run out of raw material. Space is already such a big issue in food production, that meat production accounts for 70% of all amazon deforestation. Whats more, land cleared for intensive cattle farming uses up vast amounts of water every day, far more water than if the same space of land was used for arable farming. Food manufacture is one of the most water intensive activities in the world and it takes far less water to produce plants than meat. \\\"I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities.\\\" I find it very hard to believe that there would be any difference in the amount of staff needed for growing crops compared with cattle. The meat production industry could be re-modelled to produce plant based foods over hundreds of years, meaning no jobs would be lost. \\\"Iron and protein tablets would become like oil\\\" Iron and protein are actually very easy to find in a vegetarian diet, and its hardly likely that an all-controlling supplements industry would spring up since their products wouldn't really be needed any more than they already are. So, in answer to your question; no, it doesn't seem like a better world, it just doesn't seem very likely.\",\n \"Everyone should become a vegetarian Just need help with the possible arguments\",\n \"Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.\",\n \"go vegetarian There are problems with being vegetarian\",\n \"go vegetarian Being vegetarian helps the environment\",\n \"Should the whole world become vegan No eet meet it sin say bibl an gret spoogity monser maed ov meet bol an so no eet is sinn hile kuthulu im 12\",\n \"Should People Become Vegetarian While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn\\\"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food.\",\n \"Everyone should become a vegetarian But because of everyone that eats meat there is a huge effect on the animals. Not only are they killed but also for e.g. Chickens are fed steroids and other harmful chemicals in order for them to grow fast enough to sustain our wants. There are some chickens who are built so much out of chemicals that they don't even have heads yet can produce eggs. This isn't natural. Animals are being harms because of our selfishness. Therefore by making everyone vegetarian we will stop this cruelty to animals.\",\n \"Humans should be vegetarians. I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that \\\"humans should become vegetarian\\\" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that \\\"vegetarian\\\" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word \\\"should\\\" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.\",\n \"People should stop eating meat. One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.\",\n \"Vegetarianism is a good idea. However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \\\"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\\\" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.\",\n \"Humans should be vegetarians. Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.\",\n \"The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got \\\" Too \\\" big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?\",\n \"Why People Should Be Vegetarian Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.\",\n \"Everyone should be vegetarian. Animals have feelings, and they should be treated like equals. They have souls, and thoughts, and emotions. They do not deserve to be killed for the sake of being turned into a cheap, greasy hamburger. There could be more jobs created, because the demand for tofu and other protein sources would go up. There would be less poverty because of theses jobs, and they would pay more. Soybeans and other legumes have just as much protein as a variety of meat sources.\",\n \"People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.\",\n \"The World Should Become Vegetarian Vegetarianism is much more \\\"natural\\\" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.\",\n \"The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.\",\n \"Should the whole world become vegan We stil kil anmal jus 4 funn sais the bibl\",\n \"Humans should be vegetarians. Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!\",\n \"Everyone should be vegetarian. I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)\",\n \"Everyone should be vegetarian. In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":32,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Are social networking sites good for our society?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Social networking sites are harmful.\nSocial networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. \"Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.\nFirst of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. \"Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired\" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. \"Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking\" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, \"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result.\" This is the fault of the individual and not the site.","Social Networking Sites are Harmful\nSorry for thinking that you were a guy! I will start using \"her\", \"she\", and other female pronouns now >.<~!==PLAGIARISM==I'd like to bring it to the attention of the readers of this debate that PRO plagiarized most of her arguments from http://www.businessweek.com..., unless if she can prove that she's Jenna Goudreau, a reporter from Business Week and the writer of the PRO argument. Although plagiarism wasn't mentioned as a rule(as there were no rules that Elliebub posted), I still think that PRO should be punished for this.==DROPPED ARGUMENTS==The PRO completely ignored and failed to respond to the following arguments. 1) Self-determination Groups--She doesn't realize the importance of social networking sites when self-determination groups are trying to organize. Sometimes, these people are being suppressed by the government and cannot meet and group together in public-so they use online social websites. The right to free speech and to rally can be preformed online. She concedes to my point about how people with similar interests can group together and take action. ==REBUTTALS==PRO says \"I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied.\"1)I've already stated this, and I'll say it again. These large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members.2) Parents and Schools exist for reasons. Those who get cyber-bullied, just like those who get bullied in real life, can simply go to their parents or to their school.3)Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.4)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. PRO says..\"The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a résumé with a head shot.\"1) According to http://mashable.com..., recently, LinkedIn passed its 100-million user mark and currently it has 131 million members and more than a million groups. I don't see how this is \"inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.\"2) LinkedIn is adding a new member every second. (http://mashable.com...)3) A survey of LinkedIn users showed that, 61% used LinkedIn primarly, 22% use Facebook mainly, and 4% use Twitter. (http://mashable.com...)4) Also in a survey, 90% of LinkedIn users believe that this networking site is useful for connecting to clients and hiring people that they normally wouldn't meet. (http://mashable.com...)PRO says \"Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. 'There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.'\"1) Social Networking sites can allow friends and family, that are far away, to share information about their lives. If one of your friends move, how can you hope to meet them in real life constantly to keep your friendship? Websites like Facebook make forgetting your old friends and distant family members almost impossible, as you always see their updates on social networking sites.2)You may argue that social networking sites are a distraction to humans.. But can't that be said to just about everything? Online gamers, sports fans, music lovers, and more all can spend unbelievable amounts of time on their favorite activity? Anything can be a distraction.Pro also says \"Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past.\"1)No one says that you can't make your profile private....2)Sure, sometimes you don't want to talk to people in your past, but doesn't this still happen in real life? This is only relevant and specific to online networking sites.3)Pro goes to say that \"It's less personal online..\" in her earlier argument. Now she says that it's a pain and harder to deal with the past online, where \"it's less personal\".==NEW ARGUMENTS==1)Communication to large groups of people... Social networking sites allow you to feed information to groups of people. Now, instead of having to group everyone together in the same place and at the same time, to deliver information to them, you can simply post your message online. The recipients of your message can check their news feeds and read it at their own convenient times. ==OLD ARGUMENTS==I'm just putting them here to remind you guys...1) Monitered by staff members2) Balance in privacy between parents and teenagers3) The human mind needs social activity.4) Allows people to keep in touch easily, even if they are far away.5) Self-determination groups sometimes use social networking sites.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.\nSocial Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our \"cliques\" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not \"freinds\" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.","Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.\nSeeing as my the first attack that my opponent made against my side was to point out the lack of information on my side, allow me to remedy that. Firstly my opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on social networking sites and does not directly cause nature deficit disorder. Well, according to the Stanford University of Medicine Study more than half of time spent on the internet is spent communicating i.e. social networking sites. Now taking that into consideration on average a student spends three hours daily on the internet it can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily. Now, while they are on these sites they are not out experiencing nature and so these sites are directly causing a deficit of nature experiences for youths. Therefore, social networking sites are directly causing nature deficit disorder. Secondly, my opponet says that there may have not even a nature deficit disorder however, Richard Louv (who spent 10 years travelling the United States, doing interviews, and collecting research to prove that this is happening) is not the only one who agrees that nature deficit disorder exists. Harvard professor E. O. Wison refers to something similar called \"biophilia.\" He explains that humans have an innate connection to nature, however humans have been spending less time outside and more time indoors, doing technology related activities. In addition the Nature & Children Network agrees that this trend has been happening and while Richard Louv coined the term Nature Deficit Disorder, they agree that it is a real problem that is arising. Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist. Thirdly, my oppenet says that since I cannot prove a link then it should be your obligation to vote negative, however there is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature. This time spent away from nature is causing nature deficit disorder and the behavioral problems that it causes such as attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, and family stress. Because social networking sites are pulling our youths and students away from the innate connection with nature they are causing nature deficit disorder. This being the case it is your obligation to then vote in affirmative bacuase social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Now to attack my opponets point he says that social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. However, when my opponet is saying this he is being unresolution. The topic that we are debating is Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. So even if social networking sites are allowing people to connect and have those kind of relationships it in no way affects whether or not social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Even if you don't believe that there is no denying that by cutting our youths off from nature and the innate connection that humans have had with nature since our hunter gather days, social networking sites are causing problems that follow after nature deficit disorder. Such as ADHD (since youths are now unable to get rid of excess engery due to sitting in front of a computer spending time on students begin to develop ADHD) which causes problems with students in school and around their peers and family stress (due to spending time on social networking sites relations with family members tends to be worse as said by Relationship of Internet Use to Depression and Social Isolation among Adolescents). It can be seen that social networking sites are causing problems to the mental health and development of our youths. And for the reasons stated here about how social networking sites cause nature deficit disorder please vote in affirmation.","that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US\nSocial network sites are all the rage today. They allow people from every corner of the world to interact with each other by sharing pictures, leaving comments and posts, iming each other and accessing their personal information. Although these new aspects of the social networking sites seem harmless, sexual predators are using these options to assault and harass children and teens all over the world. There have been many lawsuits against these networks for failing to provide adequate security and maintenance and for failing their responsibility of protecting their users. Social networking sites create a pool of private information where criminals can access it and use it to steal identities, or portray as a different person. In addition, social networking sites promote negative behavior, as seen with the pro-anorexia groups on facebook, and the juicy campus gossip site which landed a student in jail. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because any perceived benefit of social networking is essentially an insignificant stretch, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution.","Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.\nSorry for the delay, my internet was down so i had trouble getting on. Anyways, thanks for accepting and good luck to you once again. According to cbs news the average time a teen spends on the internet every day is roughtly 3 hours. This translates into over 6 hours of time spent on the computer. In fact, the most amount of time young people spend on the internet is on social networking sites. As said by Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time online? MySpace is the most winner for people spending the most time on it. A whopping 11.9% (it blew sites like youtube and wikipedia out of the water since both they only had a combined 1% of time spent on the internet even though youths spend a lot of time on each either watching videos posted by others or reading the various articles on wikipedia), this means that over one tenth of the time spent on the internet is spent on just one individual social networking site. This does not take into consideration how much time is spent on other social networking sites such as facebook. So when you take this into consideration it and then apply it to the fact that the average teen spends 3 hours on the internet it becomes clear that social networking sites are drawing our youth away from nature and drawing them towards these sites. Therefore, causing directly causing nature deficit disorder.","Teacher-student friendships on Facebook\nOnline relationships let students in need reach out.","Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\nFirst of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.1. This is not the fault of social networking sitesMy opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.2. This is not a problem with most networking sitesRecalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of \"Usernames\", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not \"szack\", nor is mine \"The Chaos Heart\". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.3. You could just not use your real name. There is an easy solution to this \"problem\" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.4. The morality of firing someone is questionableThe morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.1. Connection in education is goodMy opponent argues, \"Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation...\" But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.3. My opponent's own source argues against themMy opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.I turn it over to my opponent.","Social Media is bad\nI'm aware that cyberbullying is bad, but schools around the world have been teaching teens on how to prevent cyberbullying (here is a site: http://cyberbullying.org...). This has helped teens become more aware of what could happen on social media and has also decreased the possibility of someone being cyber bullied. It's a persons' choice to be more talkative through social media (to people that live far away) than talking to people around him/her.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.\nThank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is \"Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society.\" However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that \"I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression\" as well as that \"For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change.\" However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that \"Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.\" However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.","Technology should replace human labor\nSection 1. Technology actually ruins educations and makes us dumber than my oponent thinks. In this section I will delve in the eight ways that technology does this. Smart phones and computers emit a blue- enriched light that disrupts our melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that controls when we feel sleepy, this blue light messes up the process and we lose the ability to stay on a sleep schedule. The loss of sleep can cause increased bad attitudes, decreased focus at work, loss of memory and loss of brain tissue. This could kill your social life as no one would no longer want to be around you. Technology makes it easier to get distracted, especially when it comes to teenagers. A 2012 survey at Pew Research Center, taken by more than 2,400 teachers show that today's students are more distracted by technology than previous generations. The survey shows that 87% of teachers agree that digital technology is creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans while 64% agreed that it's doing more harm to their education than helping them. This can damage careers because this same generation, and future generations are going into the workforce, and with them comes that short attention span. They'll spend more time on their phone or computer than actually work, and in return, they'll get fired. When they go to tell other companies why they got fired, they will probably not be hired, adding on to the number of unemployed. Technology makes it difficult to remember anything and/or make new memories. Nicholas Carr explains in The Shallows that there are two types of memory, Transient working memory and long term memory. Information needs to be transferred to long-term memory in order to be remembered, but the simplest act of checking your mail of a text will cause that information to be erased from all reaches of your mind. Also, when we look at out mail, text or Facebook we take in more information than our brains are supposed to. It's pretty much like filling a glass of water for long periods of time. The water on top will spill out making room for more which will also spill out eventually. This creates difficulties learning. Technology outsources our brains. We rely on it to remember everything for us. This causes us to not use our brain, which in turn means we're not thinking. There was a time when we'd turn to our friends if we didn't know something, but no a days we rely too much on technology. In 2013 a Trending Machine Survey was released to the public. In response, Patricia Gutentag, a family and occupational therapist, said that technology was the main culprit. She claimed that \"This is a population that has grown up multitasking using technology, often compounded of lack of sleep, all of which results in high levels of forgetfulness\" When you dismiss all distractions, your brain still won't take in any information if you're reading online. Hypertext is the cause of this. Those colorful links make your brain work harder than it usually would leaving you with less brain energy for reading. Reading online in general causes diminishing comprehension. According to a study in 2010, people who rely of GPS systems to get around have less activity in their hippocampus which is a part of your brain that helps with memory and navigation. The use of a GPS operated car, like the google car, causes people to have memory problems later in life. No matter what, they'd still have memory problems, and that's bad. Another study in 2008 shows that taxi drivers have a more well developed hippocampus than non-taxi drivers, because taxi drivers usually don't use a GPS, so they get around using spatial memory. Last but not least, internet is a drug. Yes. People can get addicted to the internet. Gamer's will even sacrifice food, school and sleep just to play games for days on end. This causes them to have a strange grey and white matter in their brain which cripples the regions that process emotions and regulating attention/decision making. Also, people have died from these addictions. One reason is because they'll sit for so long that all the blood will leave their legs and when they stand up, that sudden rush of blood into the legs proves too much for their bodies to handle so all their organs shut down. Another reason is that the lack of using their brain can distort their reality so they'll go around attacking and killing \"enemies\" to get money or other things. Though all this technology is bad, I'll admit that some tech. isn't bad and can actually help. People listening to music usually work harder and faster than those who don't. Also, people who listen to music while working seem to excel more than those who don't. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://listverse.com...Section 2: My oppoent claims that he isn't talking about completely replacing the human work force, but he also complains that it would do more harm than good. This claim still conflicts with our country's economy. Each \"robot\" costs somewhere between $20,000- $22,000, most of everyone's money will go into buying those. Honestly, I think companies would have a much easier time paying human workers, it'd be cheaper too. In Britain, 10 million jobs are at risk because they're planning on replacing the people with technology. That is 6.41% of the British population. Currently 5.5% of Britain's population is unemployed. That's a lot of people. Their unemployment rate is currently at 79.3% that's a bit high. This is above the level of natural unemployement, this means that they're currently experiencing inflation, which we all know greatly damages an economy. Taking away those 10 million jobs won't help them in anyway. It'll just send them deeper into the hole. Knowing this, technology wouldn't come anywhere close to helping us, even if we only replace a few jobs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.quickmba.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 3: The internet is harmful. There are countless numbers of people who are sending fake emails that contain viruses and hacking into accounts to get ahold of someone's personal information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.). The FBI even said that Social Networking alone holds a great risk because of computer savvy hackers who are more than happy to hack your accounts randomly and install unkown software that more than likely has a virus or two in them. Also, companies put cookies on your accounts evertime you visit a site. They use this to pratically steal personal information and spy on you to see what you like. The Google Car was even banned because it was originally used to personal information. Google knew about it too. The company claimed it to be a mistake, but if it was I'm sure they'd have found it and fixed it before releasing it to the public. So far the car has been recalled and is currently illegal due to this situation. https://www.fbi.gov... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 4: Like I explained early and in the last round. Technology would do more harm to the economy than one would think, no matter how many people are replaced.Section 5: I admit I might have gotten the numbers wrong so I asked a friend who's currently studying economics and he said that the current percentage of people unemployed in America is 5.5%Section 6: Though technology would create new demand for jobs, those jobs will already be filled with already working humans. Even if they hire new people, there would still be a massive amount of people unemployed. Section 7: The fewer the hours people will have to work, the higher the paycheck they'll need. If minimum wage and other such payments are raised, then the prices of everything will surely follow as I have explained in my last economic debate. This, will also help plunge us into an extremely deep inflation. http://www.debate.org...","social media good for young children\nThe one common bad effect of social media is addiction \" the constant checking of Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media updates. Experts believe that knowing what\"s going on with friends and what they are thinking or feeling can be addicting. Researchers at UCLA\"s Brain Mapping Center has found that being appreciated in social media through \"likes\" was seen in brain scans to activate the reward centers of the brain. This reward circuitry is particularly sensitive during adolescence, and this may partly explain why teenagers are more into social media. For kids and teens, knowing how many people like what they posted, how many followed (or unfollowed) them, and knowing what people say about them also leads to compulsive checking. This addiction to social media could disrupt other worthwhile activities like concentrating on schoolwork, reading or engaging in sports. The heaviest social media users admit to checking their social media feeds more than 100 times a day, sometimes even during school. Bad effects of social networking to kids and teens, according to psychologists or suggested by scientific studies, are as follows: A 2015 U.K. Office for National Statistics finds that children who spend more than 3 hours each school day on social media sites are more than twice as likely to suffer poor mental health. Their immersion in a virtual world may cause these children to experience delay in their emotional and social development. According to the report, social media are potentially \"a source of social comparison, cyber bullying and isolation\", which could lead to mental health problems. A report published by IZA Institute of Labor Economics even suggests that just one hour a day on social media can make a teen miserable. The study also theorized that this may be caused by issues of cyberbullying, an increase in social comparisons, and a decrease in real-life, face-to-face activities. Another 2015 study by the British Psychological Society finds that teenagers being obligated to be responsive to social media (liking posts, answering texts and direct messages) throughout the day affect their mental health. A University of Michigan study seem to indicate that in young adults, Facebook use leads to decline in subjective well-being. The more young adults use Facebook, the worse they feel moment-to-moment and the less they feel satisfied with their lives overall. DoSometing.org, \"one of the largest organizations for young people and social change\", lists several bad effects of social media, which includes sleep disorder, depression, addiction, 24/7 stress, isolation, insecurity, and fear of missing out (FOMO). FOMO or the fear of missing out on something important (like their friends\" jokes, parties, activities and other ways of having fun) leads to depression and anxiety in teen social media users, according to a survey done by the Australian Psychological Society. FOMO is one of the main reasons for teenagers\" heavy use of social media. Screen relationships detract from spending time in real life relationships and developing social skills. According to Patricia Greenfield, professor of psychology in the UCLA College, the implications of her research is that when people use digital media for social interaction, they\"re spending less time developing social skills and learning to read nonverbal cues. \"Social interaction is needed to develop skills in understanding the emotions of other people.\" The results of a survey from the University of Glasgow shows that social media use particularly at night, with strong emotional involvement, led to poorer sleep quality, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of anxiety. This can be a problem since teens with low self-esteem grow up as depressed adults, according to previous studies. Social networks are fertile grounds for bad influencers and anonymous venoms and hunting grounds for deviants and other predators. For kids who crave attention, Facebook and other social network becomes a venue for them to act out. These kids may make inappropriate statements, pictures and videos that could ultimately harm them. Also, posts and materials that are published online tend to be permanent and may haunt them in the future. A study by Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University concludes that extended use of social networks like Facebook can result in a decrease in empathy among teens, and thus an increase in narcissism. Young people who have a history of harming themselves or attempting suicide might be particularly vulnerable to negative messages posted online, new research shows. The new review, published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, found that kids and young adults who have thoughts of self-harm or suicide actually spend more time on the Internet and are more often victims of cyberbullying than their peers who do not have such thoughts. Some kids realize that spending a lot of time in social media results in wasted time, and this negatively affects their mood Selfies, which became popular with the rise of camera phones, can trigger mental health conditions when a person becomes obsessed with looks. The Mirror, for example, recently featured a selfie addict who tried to kill himself when he couldn\"t take a perfect photo. According to Pamela Rutledge in Psychology Today, \"Preoccupation with selfies can be a visible indicator of a young person with a lack of confidence or sense of self that might make him or her a victim of other problems as well. Excessive and increasingly provocative selfie-ing is a form of \"acting out,\" a common behavioral pattern to get attention.\" Educators also note that for kids and teens in social networks, there are no spelling and grammar rules. In fact it is cool to misspell and not make sense. Less sophisticated children will find it hard to differentiate between social networking communication and real world communication. In fact many teachers are complaining that social networking communication with misspellings and lack of grammar are seeping through student\"s school writings. Social media habits are also blamed for lack of sleep and sleep problems in teenagers. Bright light emitted from smart phones and tablets are thought to disrupt sleep cycles. For young people sleep is important for learning, the development of the young brain, as well as for growing and staying healthy. Baroness Susan Greenfield , a top neuroscientist of the Oxford University warns about the lifelong effects of too much social networking: Facebook and other networking sites \"are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a short attention span and live for the moment\". There is hardly any concentration skills required in participating in these social networking sites, and these train the brain to have poor attention span. Kids are detracted from learning to communicate in the real world. There are reports from teachers that social networking is affecting kids\" comprehension levels. Also, if kids communicate primarily through the screen they do not learn the subtleties of real life communication \" such as body language, tone of voice, and subconsciously sensing the molecules that other people release. Social networking sites make kids more self-centered. Since Facebook and other sites give kids their own page which is about them, it leads some vulnerable kids to think that everything revolves around them, a precursor for emotional problems in their later life. This might also result in inability to empathize. These sites make kids prone to sensationalism. Thank you for reading my argument, please consider it.","Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.\nNeilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. \"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.\" Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) \"As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process.\" Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' \" says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are \"exploring and experimenting\" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. \"There's been a definite shift the last two months,\" she says. \"There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before.\" I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become \"friends\" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.","Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of speech in social networking.\n\"I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace.\" Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. It is because I agree with: Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, in the position that social contracts lead to well-being, that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution, Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Ought: used to express duty or moral obligation The highest value within today's round is well-being. Well-being is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare. Well-being is most important in today's round because it is a main thing the human race strives for, and it can be achieved with the use of a social contract. The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. - \"Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved \"friends\" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients \"in appropriate cases\" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. \"If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant,\" the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday.\" ~ http://www.lockergnome.com... There are many who have lost jobs and have gone through unnecessary stress due to inappropriate content they posted on their websites. Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. Social networking sites are no longer private. One must be aware of the risks they take while posting anything negative or displeasing on their website. Everything you do on the internet is cached and it may cost you your job and maybe even worse consequences. Soon, there will be no impunity with what you do. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. The benefits of behaving appropriately: •Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. •Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. •It may make a great first impression. The cons of behaving inappropriately: •Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. •Giving a poor first impression. •People may NOT find you appealing. It is obvious that the benefits supersede. Social networking sites can be used for your social benefit. You will often make good first impressions, and be respected. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. I have shown you that professional behavior on social networking sites may induce well being, but the resolution has a word in there that twists everything a lot for my argument. Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. These also can be replaced with should and removal of the infinitive (to); You should behave properly. You should go to sleep. The resolution doesn't say: \"Standards of professional behavior ARE to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.\" Ought means you are obliged. It is in your BEST INTEREST to behave that way. Do you absolutely have to? No. People can choose to behave properly. It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites, that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately, and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that well-being should be upheld and that Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.","That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America\nImpact Definition 1a--> There are many definitions I agree. Which is why I urge you to accept both. To have a direct impact on AND to have a powerful effect. b--> Notice my opponents definitions anyway where he said, \"An impact could be direct or indirect.\"… Basically from this you should see that the impact is all dependent on the actor. The economy is indirect, and the child molester cases are a direct effect. Both of these are acceptable and both of them prove that social networking sites have a neutral impact because it ALL depends on the actor, something that isn't specified in the resolution. So impact can be a baseball bat. But a baseball bat is a tool, JUST LIKE a social networking site. c--> 1) It also says effect, please use that if impact in the impact definition is that bad of an ordeal. 2) That must mean that Webster's Dictionary isn't legit. Which is absolutely ridiculous. d--> If social networking sites were to have no members, then they would have no impact right? This is the same as hammers, guns, and even baseball bats. So if you even accept the positive influences of social networking sites of my opponent, then you must see that it has only been used well. The ACTOR has the impact NOT the TOOL. 2--> Ok, but you misinterpret my position which I'll get to later. 3--> Your entire position is based on the idea that tools are positive OR negative and can't be both. But what I have shown is that it is not the tool that decides this, it is the person. I have proven this through guns, baseball bats, hammers, and of course social networking sites. If you have yet to understand my position (judges), then think of it like this. Social Networking Sites, have BOTH types of impacts on us (positive AND negative). The impact that happens in a subjective case can be positive OR negative, but when you look at it objectively, you will see a mixture. Thus you can not determine the actual impact, but rather, notice the true determining factor. The user of the networking site. 3a--> Are you contending that the site of the social networking site helps our economy and fights the war on terror? If anything you have conceded the fact that it helps sexual predators. Also the gun did aid in the killing (just like the aiding of sexual predators), but it is not what had the impact. It is the one pulling the trigger or the one lying of his age and stealing a child to rape them. No difference. So would you contend that guns have a negative impact on society? Or would you agree with me that it is the shooter, not the tool that determines the positive or negative impact. 4--> Cross-apply the sexual predators and child-parent relationship harms against this point. It proves that \"on balance\" it is the user of the social networking site that causes the impact. 5--> EXACTLY! It has both positive and negative impacts, so how can you claim that \"Social Networking Sites have a positive impact on the United States\" when there are ALSO negative ones as well. Economy: 1) The USA Today link evidence only proves my point. That the newspaper sales have gone down and has generally switched to TV and Social Networking Sites. AKA: The Economy has been going up for Social Networking Sites and down for newspapers. A transfer from one to the other creates a net-benefit of nothing. And although the evidence points to a few sources, it fails to even talk about Social Networking Sites. Therefore, they could be a part of the downfall of Social Networking Sites. I for one know of several people who stop reading newspapers and rather use the internet to get their news. \"Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat.\"--> 2) I really don't think that the few pennies that people are saving from this minor change are not going to feed or not feed a family. It is nice, certainly, but not going to be the reason that I get to have chicken rather than chicken ramen noodles. ONE GROUP OF INCOME IS NOT GOING TO CREATE OR DESTROY THE ECONOMY! 3) 250,000 new social networking sites?!?! How can any legitimate jobs be created out of this? Not to mention that this will lead to a growing obesity rate :D … And those new fatties are probably the ones raping our children. \"Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad\"--> 4) Even if the judges agree that the positive outweigh the negative, you still can't claim that it is ONLY a positive impact (like the resolution asks for). In that case, the resolution shall be negated AS: \"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive AND NEGATIVE impact on the United States of America dependant on the user of the site.\" From this, you vote CON! Bullying: I got the evidence out of an evidence packet that gets sent to our school for our team. If it isn't legit, then you can bring it up with \"Squirrel Killers.\" 1) You're a friend with me on a Social Networking Site and you hardly even know me. Watch this… I hate you… Now you see that. I just bullied you and you had no choice in the matter. The site did nothing to prevent it and if we were in real life, I doubt I would have been able to even say it. This is because social networking sites make it so much easier over the internet. You can hurt someone just as much without having to say it in person. A lot easier for mean people like me ;) 2) You claim that there is no net-impact. But look to the situation where some neighbor parents pushed a girl to suicide through a social networking sites. This would not have happened in real life since they couldn't pretend to be someone (like they were). Thus there ARE impacts because of social networking sites. Sexual Predators: \"Mostly people that they know\"--> -As you can tell, we are now friends on a social networking site and we do not know each other. There are several people that I have \"met\" online and I know others who have as well. -Therefore the sexual predator arguments still stand. Please flow through the evidence and by this, you can further see the inherent negative impacts which thus proves that it is all dependant on the user of the tool (in this situation, the social networking site being used by sexual predators… They have a negative impact just like the advertisers and small business people have a positive impact. They use the tool good OR bad and the tool doesn't determine ANYTHING. Terrorism: \"Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents\"--> -Which is why bullying has such a powerful impact on social networking sites. Please cross-apply this statement on the bullying line of arguing. -Also, are you saying that we ought not be concerned with kids learning from their parents? Users of social networking sites are getting younger and younger. It will only be some time before everything is learned online (from my opponents statement). This is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing. Kids must learn from their parents. \"4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins\"--> -The War on Terrorism argument was ONLY linked to the economy which was argued earlier. -We are not going to win or lose the war on terror because we do or do not have social networking sites. Nor is there going to make that big of a difference. Such as I proved before with the economy. Democracy: There was good debate on the candidates (positive) and some unnecessary slanderous videos on the presidential candidates. Because of this, you MUST see that there are both positive AND negative impacts DEPENDING on the user of the tool (of social networking sites). Because of this, I urge you to vote CON! Thank you for this GREAT debate!","social media\nIt is a good way to keep in touch with people, but people get used to talking to people online so when they have to talk face-to-face it is difficult. People also say things to others that they wouldn't say to their face and that is when problems with bullying happens.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.\nThis is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them. Because the resolution states \"That, on balance\" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate. That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.","on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses\nHe has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet. \" my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t. v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet? for my second contention, my opponent stated \"I agree with my opponent in one thing. \"they need people to know about what they offer\". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls. \" first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- now i would like to go onto attacking my opponents case for his first contention he said\"While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk. SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. \"A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U. S. prosecutors. The U. S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering \"Executive Dating\" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services. \" Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless. SOURCE: . http://www.king5.com...; he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information. they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer. my opponent said in his second contention:\"The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people. \" he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not. now for my conclusion: in conclusion the resolution states: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses. which means that i have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, my opponent stated the harms of viruses and that it is unpredictable, but i have already attacked those arguments. my opponent has tried to attack my case saying that there are better methods, but i have already defended that, and the other methods aren't even reliant to this debate, the resolution is only talking about the internet and nothing else. my opponent said that there are other ways to get information,but as i have already stated we aren't talking about anything else other than the internet. i have proven the benefits of the internet to businesses, and i have attacked the harms, so, that means that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, so that is why i urge you to please vote for the affermitive in this debate thanks, -bored123456","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.\nThis is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.","Social networks are beneficial to our society!\nTo start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the \"hit-maker\" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber\"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a \"contagion\" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think \"social media helps solve crimes more quickly. \" [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, \"Never Seconds,\" which exposed the state of her school\"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of \"Friends of Never Seconds\" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to \"lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. \" [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported \"at least one measurable business benefit. \" For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]\"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands,\" www. briansolis. com [3]\"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives,\" www. commonsensemedia. org [5]\"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool,\" Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]\"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media,\" www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, \"Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking,\" www. nsba. org [8] \"The Case for Social Media in Schools,\" www. mashable. com [10] \"The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy,\" www. jobvite. com [12]\"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey,\" www. jobvite. com [13]\"Generations 2010,\" www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, \"Move Over Youngsters, Grandma\"s on Facebook,\" www. newswise. com [16] \"Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist,\" Forbes Asia Magazine [17]\"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts,\" www. nea. gov [18] \"How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education,\" Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] \"Skype and the Embedded Librarian,\" Library Technology Reports [21]\"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users,\" www. blog. edmodo. com [22]\"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites,\" USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]\"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing,\" www. lexisnexis. com [24]\"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force,\" www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]\"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation,\" www. usatodayeducate. com [28]\"How Social Media Saved the Economy,\" www. technorati. com [30]\"Twitter,\" www. topics. nytimes. com [31]\"Facebook, Public Education and Equity\"www. dm [33]\"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research\" www. guardian. co. uk [34]\"Social Media and Voting\",www. pewinternet. org [35]\"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media,\" s1. intuitstatic. com","society going into decline\nSociety is winding down into chaos and disorder.In almost all sphere\"s of life and public relations.Kids are totally without discipline and most people dont seem to care. with social media running rampant what chance do people have, its all about how people look, how many friends they have got. Society is turning more and more sour people are being groomed for hate. If you think society is getting better please debate, becauce all I see is chaos,rebellion and disorder.","Students should use social networking\n1. Social media can be a distraction in class The first concern that comes to mind when using social media in the classroom is how it will be a major distraction to the students during lessons. Students could easily be sidetracked from an assignment and it could be difficult for teachers to tell who is paying attention or not. 2. Improper use of social media in the classroom Students might take advantage of being able to access social media in the classroom and use it for personal interactions instead of for school related activities. If students are not closely monitored it will be hard to know how if they are using social media properly during class time. 3. Using social media in the classroom can detract from human interaction If students are encouraged to participate in class discussions through social media websites this could impact their ability to interact in face to face situations. Students still need to learn how to have conversations with people even in this modern technology based world. 4. Cyber bullying on social media websites Some students have experienced cyber bullying through social media websites. If social media is allowed in schools this could increase cyber bullying where students write hurtful messages targeting other students. 5. Posting inappropriate content on social media websites One of the reasons social media sites are not allowed in schools is because it is difficult to monitor how students use social media sites. A student may post inappropriate content such as pornography or foul language which would be both distracting and damaging to students."],"string":"[\n \"Social networking sites are harmful.\\nSocial networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. \\\"Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.\\nFirst of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: \\\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\\\" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. \\\"Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \\\"electronic footprint\\\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired\\\" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. \\\"Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \\\"wasting time\\\" on their social networking\\\" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \\\"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\\\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \\\"You look just awesome in this new movie,\\\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \\\"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\\\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, \\\"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result.\\\" This is the fault of the individual and not the site.\",\n \"Social Networking Sites are Harmful\\nSorry for thinking that you were a guy! I will start using \\\"her\\\", \\\"she\\\", and other female pronouns now >.<~!==PLAGIARISM==I'd like to bring it to the attention of the readers of this debate that PRO plagiarized most of her arguments from http://www.businessweek.com..., unless if she can prove that she's Jenna Goudreau, a reporter from Business Week and the writer of the PRO argument. Although plagiarism wasn't mentioned as a rule(as there were no rules that Elliebub posted), I still think that PRO should be punished for this.==DROPPED ARGUMENTS==The PRO completely ignored and failed to respond to the following arguments. 1) Self-determination Groups--She doesn't realize the importance of social networking sites when self-determination groups are trying to organize. Sometimes, these people are being suppressed by the government and cannot meet and group together in public-so they use online social websites. The right to free speech and to rally can be preformed online. She concedes to my point about how people with similar interests can group together and take action. ==REBUTTALS==PRO says \\\"I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied.\\\"1)I've already stated this, and I'll say it again. These large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members.2) Parents and Schools exist for reasons. Those who get cyber-bullied, just like those who get bullied in real life, can simply go to their parents or to their school.3)Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.4)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. PRO says..\\\"The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a résumé with a head shot.\\\"1) According to http://mashable.com..., recently, LinkedIn passed its 100-million user mark and currently it has 131 million members and more than a million groups. I don't see how this is \\\"inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.\\\"2) LinkedIn is adding a new member every second. (http://mashable.com...)3) A survey of LinkedIn users showed that, 61% used LinkedIn primarly, 22% use Facebook mainly, and 4% use Twitter. (http://mashable.com...)4) Also in a survey, 90% of LinkedIn users believe that this networking site is useful for connecting to clients and hiring people that they normally wouldn't meet. (http://mashable.com...)PRO says \\\"Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \\\"The most effective networking is face to face,\\\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. 'There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.'\\\"1) Social Networking sites can allow friends and family, that are far away, to share information about their lives. If one of your friends move, how can you hope to meet them in real life constantly to keep your friendship? Websites like Facebook make forgetting your old friends and distant family members almost impossible, as you always see their updates on social networking sites.2)You may argue that social networking sites are a distraction to humans.. But can't that be said to just about everything? Online gamers, sports fans, music lovers, and more all can spend unbelievable amounts of time on their favorite activity? Anything can be a distraction.Pro also says \\\"Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past.\\\"1)No one says that you can't make your profile private....2)Sure, sometimes you don't want to talk to people in your past, but doesn't this still happen in real life? This is only relevant and specific to online networking sites.3)Pro goes to say that \\\"It's less personal online..\\\" in her earlier argument. Now she says that it's a pain and harder to deal with the past online, where \\\"it's less personal\\\".==NEW ARGUMENTS==1)Communication to large groups of people... Social networking sites allow you to feed information to groups of people. Now, instead of having to group everyone together in the same place and at the same time, to deliver information to them, you can simply post your message online. The recipients of your message can check their news feeds and read it at their own convenient times. ==OLD ARGUMENTS==I'm just putting them here to remind you guys...1) Monitered by staff members2) Balance in privacy between parents and teenagers3) The human mind needs social activity.4) Allows people to keep in touch easily, even if they are far away.5) Self-determination groups sometimes use social networking sites.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.\\nSocial Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our \\\"cliques\\\" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not \\\"freinds\\\" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.\",\n \"Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.\\nSeeing as my the first attack that my opponent made against my side was to point out the lack of information on my side, allow me to remedy that. Firstly my opponent says that there is no proof that students are spending time on social networking sites and does not directly cause nature deficit disorder. Well, according to the Stanford University of Medicine Study more than half of time spent on the internet is spent communicating i.e. social networking sites. Now taking that into consideration on average a student spends three hours daily on the internet it can be seen that at least an hour and a half on spent on these sites daily. Now, while they are on these sites they are not out experiencing nature and so these sites are directly causing a deficit of nature experiences for youths. Therefore, social networking sites are directly causing nature deficit disorder. Secondly, my opponet says that there may have not even a nature deficit disorder however, Richard Louv (who spent 10 years travelling the United States, doing interviews, and collecting research to prove that this is happening) is not the only one who agrees that nature deficit disorder exists. Harvard professor E. O. Wison refers to something similar called \\\"biophilia.\\\" He explains that humans have an innate connection to nature, however humans have been spending less time outside and more time indoors, doing technology related activities. In addition the Nature & Children Network agrees that this trend has been happening and while Richard Louv coined the term Nature Deficit Disorder, they agree that it is a real problem that is arising. Therefore, when you have different people and organizations agree then it is not true to just say that nature deficit disorder does not exist. Thirdly, my oppenet says that since I cannot prove a link then it should be your obligation to vote negative, however there is a link that I have already proven. First being that a majority of the time spent on the internet is spent on social networking sites and communication, then social networking sites are pulling our children away from nature. This time spent away from nature is causing nature deficit disorder and the behavioral problems that it causes such as attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, early diabetes, childhood obesity, and family stress. Because social networking sites are pulling our youths and students away from the innate connection with nature they are causing nature deficit disorder. This being the case it is your obligation to then vote in affirmative bacuase social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Now to attack my opponets point he says that social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. However, when my opponet is saying this he is being unresolution. The topic that we are debating is Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. So even if social networking sites are allowing people to connect and have those kind of relationships it in no way affects whether or not social networking sites are causing nature deficit disorder. Even if you don't believe that there is no denying that by cutting our youths off from nature and the innate connection that humans have had with nature since our hunter gather days, social networking sites are causing problems that follow after nature deficit disorder. Such as ADHD (since youths are now unable to get rid of excess engery due to sitting in front of a computer spending time on students begin to develop ADHD) which causes problems with students in school and around their peers and family stress (due to spending time on social networking sites relations with family members tends to be worse as said by Relationship of Internet Use to Depression and Social Isolation among Adolescents). It can be seen that social networking sites are causing problems to the mental health and development of our youths. And for the reasons stated here about how social networking sites cause nature deficit disorder please vote in affirmation.\",\n \"that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US\\nSocial network sites are all the rage today. They allow people from every corner of the world to interact with each other by sharing pictures, leaving comments and posts, iming each other and accessing their personal information. Although these new aspects of the social networking sites seem harmless, sexual predators are using these options to assault and harass children and teens all over the world. There have been many lawsuits against these networks for failing to provide adequate security and maintenance and for failing their responsibility of protecting their users. Social networking sites create a pool of private information where criminals can access it and use it to steal identities, or portray as a different person. In addition, social networking sites promote negative behavior, as seen with the pro-anorexia groups on facebook, and the juicy campus gossip site which landed a student in jail. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \\\"electronic footprint\\\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \\\"wasting time\\\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \\\"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\\\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \\\"You look just awesome in this new movie,\\\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \\\"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\\\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \\\"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\\\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because any perceived benefit of social networking is essentially an insignificant stretch, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution.\",\n \"Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.\\nSorry for the delay, my internet was down so i had trouble getting on. Anyways, thanks for accepting and good luck to you once again. According to cbs news the average time a teen spends on the internet every day is roughtly 3 hours. This translates into over 6 hours of time spent on the computer. In fact, the most amount of time young people spend on the internet is on social networking sites. As said by Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time online? MySpace is the most winner for people spending the most time on it. A whopping 11.9% (it blew sites like youtube and wikipedia out of the water since both they only had a combined 1% of time spent on the internet even though youths spend a lot of time on each either watching videos posted by others or reading the various articles on wikipedia), this means that over one tenth of the time spent on the internet is spent on just one individual social networking site. This does not take into consideration how much time is spent on other social networking sites such as facebook. So when you take this into consideration it and then apply it to the fact that the average teen spends 3 hours on the internet it becomes clear that social networking sites are drawing our youth away from nature and drawing them towards these sites. Therefore, causing directly causing nature deficit disorder.\",\n \"Teacher-student friendships on Facebook\\nOnline relationships let students in need reach out.\",\n \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\\nFirst of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.1. This is not the fault of social networking sitesMy opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.2. This is not a problem with most networking sitesRecalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of \\\"Usernames\\\", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not \\\"szack\\\", nor is mine \\\"The Chaos Heart\\\". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.3. You could just not use your real name. There is an easy solution to this \\\"problem\\\" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.4. The morality of firing someone is questionableThe morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.1. Connection in education is goodMy opponent argues, \\\"Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation...\\\" But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.3. My opponent's own source argues against themMy opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.I turn it over to my opponent.\",\n \"Social Media is bad\\nI'm aware that cyberbullying is bad, but schools around the world have been teaching teens on how to prevent cyberbullying (here is a site: http://cyberbullying.org...). This has helped teens become more aware of what could happen on social media and has also decreased the possibility of someone being cyber bullied. It's a persons' choice to be more talkative through social media (to people that live far away) than talking to people around him/her.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.\\nThank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is \\\"Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society.\\\" However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that \\\"I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression\\\" as well as that \\\"For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change.\\\" However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that \\\"Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.\\\" However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \\\"electronic footprint\\\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \\\"wasting time\\\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \\\"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\\\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \\\"You look just awesome in this new movie,\\\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \\\"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\\\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \\\"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\\\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.\",\n \"Technology should replace human labor\\nSection 1. Technology actually ruins educations and makes us dumber than my oponent thinks. In this section I will delve in the eight ways that technology does this. Smart phones and computers emit a blue- enriched light that disrupts our melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that controls when we feel sleepy, this blue light messes up the process and we lose the ability to stay on a sleep schedule. The loss of sleep can cause increased bad attitudes, decreased focus at work, loss of memory and loss of brain tissue. This could kill your social life as no one would no longer want to be around you. Technology makes it easier to get distracted, especially when it comes to teenagers. A 2012 survey at Pew Research Center, taken by more than 2,400 teachers show that today's students are more distracted by technology than previous generations. The survey shows that 87% of teachers agree that digital technology is creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans while 64% agreed that it's doing more harm to their education than helping them. This can damage careers because this same generation, and future generations are going into the workforce, and with them comes that short attention span. They'll spend more time on their phone or computer than actually work, and in return, they'll get fired. When they go to tell other companies why they got fired, they will probably not be hired, adding on to the number of unemployed. Technology makes it difficult to remember anything and/or make new memories. Nicholas Carr explains in The Shallows that there are two types of memory, Transient working memory and long term memory. Information needs to be transferred to long-term memory in order to be remembered, but the simplest act of checking your mail of a text will cause that information to be erased from all reaches of your mind. Also, when we look at out mail, text or Facebook we take in more information than our brains are supposed to. It's pretty much like filling a glass of water for long periods of time. The water on top will spill out making room for more which will also spill out eventually. This creates difficulties learning. Technology outsources our brains. We rely on it to remember everything for us. This causes us to not use our brain, which in turn means we're not thinking. There was a time when we'd turn to our friends if we didn't know something, but no a days we rely too much on technology. In 2013 a Trending Machine Survey was released to the public. In response, Patricia Gutentag, a family and occupational therapist, said that technology was the main culprit. She claimed that \\\"This is a population that has grown up multitasking using technology, often compounded of lack of sleep, all of which results in high levels of forgetfulness\\\" When you dismiss all distractions, your brain still won't take in any information if you're reading online. Hypertext is the cause of this. Those colorful links make your brain work harder than it usually would leaving you with less brain energy for reading. Reading online in general causes diminishing comprehension. According to a study in 2010, people who rely of GPS systems to get around have less activity in their hippocampus which is a part of your brain that helps with memory and navigation. The use of a GPS operated car, like the google car, causes people to have memory problems later in life. No matter what, they'd still have memory problems, and that's bad. Another study in 2008 shows that taxi drivers have a more well developed hippocampus than non-taxi drivers, because taxi drivers usually don't use a GPS, so they get around using spatial memory. Last but not least, internet is a drug. Yes. People can get addicted to the internet. Gamer's will even sacrifice food, school and sleep just to play games for days on end. This causes them to have a strange grey and white matter in their brain which cripples the regions that process emotions and regulating attention/decision making. Also, people have died from these addictions. One reason is because they'll sit for so long that all the blood will leave their legs and when they stand up, that sudden rush of blood into the legs proves too much for their bodies to handle so all their organs shut down. Another reason is that the lack of using their brain can distort their reality so they'll go around attacking and killing \\\"enemies\\\" to get money or other things. Though all this technology is bad, I'll admit that some tech. isn't bad and can actually help. People listening to music usually work harder and faster than those who don't. Also, people who listen to music while working seem to excel more than those who don't. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://listverse.com...Section 2: My oppoent claims that he isn't talking about completely replacing the human work force, but he also complains that it would do more harm than good. This claim still conflicts with our country's economy. Each \\\"robot\\\" costs somewhere between $20,000- $22,000, most of everyone's money will go into buying those. Honestly, I think companies would have a much easier time paying human workers, it'd be cheaper too. In Britain, 10 million jobs are at risk because they're planning on replacing the people with technology. That is 6.41% of the British population. Currently 5.5% of Britain's population is unemployed. That's a lot of people. Their unemployment rate is currently at 79.3% that's a bit high. This is above the level of natural unemployement, this means that they're currently experiencing inflation, which we all know greatly damages an economy. Taking away those 10 million jobs won't help them in anyway. It'll just send them deeper into the hole. Knowing this, technology wouldn't come anywhere close to helping us, even if we only replace a few jobs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.quickmba.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 3: The internet is harmful. There are countless numbers of people who are sending fake emails that contain viruses and hacking into accounts to get ahold of someone's personal information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.). The FBI even said that Social Networking alone holds a great risk because of computer savvy hackers who are more than happy to hack your accounts randomly and install unkown software that more than likely has a virus or two in them. Also, companies put cookies on your accounts evertime you visit a site. They use this to pratically steal personal information and spy on you to see what you like. The Google Car was even banned because it was originally used to personal information. Google knew about it too. The company claimed it to be a mistake, but if it was I'm sure they'd have found it and fixed it before releasing it to the public. So far the car has been recalled and is currently illegal due to this situation. https://www.fbi.gov... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 4: Like I explained early and in the last round. Technology would do more harm to the economy than one would think, no matter how many people are replaced.Section 5: I admit I might have gotten the numbers wrong so I asked a friend who's currently studying economics and he said that the current percentage of people unemployed in America is 5.5%Section 6: Though technology would create new demand for jobs, those jobs will already be filled with already working humans. Even if they hire new people, there would still be a massive amount of people unemployed. Section 7: The fewer the hours people will have to work, the higher the paycheck they'll need. If minimum wage and other such payments are raised, then the prices of everything will surely follow as I have explained in my last economic debate. This, will also help plunge us into an extremely deep inflation. http://www.debate.org...\",\n \"social media good for young children\\nThe one common bad effect of social media is addiction \\\" the constant checking of Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media updates. Experts believe that knowing what\\\"s going on with friends and what they are thinking or feeling can be addicting. Researchers at UCLA\\\"s Brain Mapping Center has found that being appreciated in social media through \\\"likes\\\" was seen in brain scans to activate the reward centers of the brain. This reward circuitry is particularly sensitive during adolescence, and this may partly explain why teenagers are more into social media. For kids and teens, knowing how many people like what they posted, how many followed (or unfollowed) them, and knowing what people say about them also leads to compulsive checking. This addiction to social media could disrupt other worthwhile activities like concentrating on schoolwork, reading or engaging in sports. The heaviest social media users admit to checking their social media feeds more than 100 times a day, sometimes even during school. Bad effects of social networking to kids and teens, according to psychologists or suggested by scientific studies, are as follows: A 2015 U.K. Office for National Statistics finds that children who spend more than 3 hours each school day on social media sites are more than twice as likely to suffer poor mental health. Their immersion in a virtual world may cause these children to experience delay in their emotional and social development. According to the report, social media are potentially \\\"a source of social comparison, cyber bullying and isolation\\\", which could lead to mental health problems. A report published by IZA Institute of Labor Economics even suggests that just one hour a day on social media can make a teen miserable. The study also theorized that this may be caused by issues of cyberbullying, an increase in social comparisons, and a decrease in real-life, face-to-face activities. Another 2015 study by the British Psychological Society finds that teenagers being obligated to be responsive to social media (liking posts, answering texts and direct messages) throughout the day affect their mental health. A University of Michigan study seem to indicate that in young adults, Facebook use leads to decline in subjective well-being. The more young adults use Facebook, the worse they feel moment-to-moment and the less they feel satisfied with their lives overall. DoSometing.org, \\\"one of the largest organizations for young people and social change\\\", lists several bad effects of social media, which includes sleep disorder, depression, addiction, 24/7 stress, isolation, insecurity, and fear of missing out (FOMO). FOMO or the fear of missing out on something important (like their friends\\\" jokes, parties, activities and other ways of having fun) leads to depression and anxiety in teen social media users, according to a survey done by the Australian Psychological Society. FOMO is one of the main reasons for teenagers\\\" heavy use of social media. Screen relationships detract from spending time in real life relationships and developing social skills. According to Patricia Greenfield, professor of psychology in the UCLA College, the implications of her research is that when people use digital media for social interaction, they\\\"re spending less time developing social skills and learning to read nonverbal cues. \\\"Social interaction is needed to develop skills in understanding the emotions of other people.\\\" The results of a survey from the University of Glasgow shows that social media use particularly at night, with strong emotional involvement, led to poorer sleep quality, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of anxiety. This can be a problem since teens with low self-esteem grow up as depressed adults, according to previous studies. Social networks are fertile grounds for bad influencers and anonymous venoms and hunting grounds for deviants and other predators. For kids who crave attention, Facebook and other social network becomes a venue for them to act out. These kids may make inappropriate statements, pictures and videos that could ultimately harm them. Also, posts and materials that are published online tend to be permanent and may haunt them in the future. A study by Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University concludes that extended use of social networks like Facebook can result in a decrease in empathy among teens, and thus an increase in narcissism. Young people who have a history of harming themselves or attempting suicide might be particularly vulnerable to negative messages posted online, new research shows. The new review, published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, found that kids and young adults who have thoughts of self-harm or suicide actually spend more time on the Internet and are more often victims of cyberbullying than their peers who do not have such thoughts. Some kids realize that spending a lot of time in social media results in wasted time, and this negatively affects their mood Selfies, which became popular with the rise of camera phones, can trigger mental health conditions when a person becomes obsessed with looks. The Mirror, for example, recently featured a selfie addict who tried to kill himself when he couldn\\\"t take a perfect photo. According to Pamela Rutledge in Psychology Today, \\\"Preoccupation with selfies can be a visible indicator of a young person with a lack of confidence or sense of self that might make him or her a victim of other problems as well. Excessive and increasingly provocative selfie-ing is a form of \\\"acting out,\\\" a common behavioral pattern to get attention.\\\" Educators also note that for kids and teens in social networks, there are no spelling and grammar rules. In fact it is cool to misspell and not make sense. Less sophisticated children will find it hard to differentiate between social networking communication and real world communication. In fact many teachers are complaining that social networking communication with misspellings and lack of grammar are seeping through student\\\"s school writings. Social media habits are also blamed for lack of sleep and sleep problems in teenagers. Bright light emitted from smart phones and tablets are thought to disrupt sleep cycles. For young people sleep is important for learning, the development of the young brain, as well as for growing and staying healthy. Baroness Susan Greenfield , a top neuroscientist of the Oxford University warns about the lifelong effects of too much social networking: Facebook and other networking sites \\\"are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a short attention span and live for the moment\\\". There is hardly any concentration skills required in participating in these social networking sites, and these train the brain to have poor attention span. Kids are detracted from learning to communicate in the real world. There are reports from teachers that social networking is affecting kids\\\" comprehension levels. Also, if kids communicate primarily through the screen they do not learn the subtleties of real life communication \\\" such as body language, tone of voice, and subconsciously sensing the molecules that other people release. Social networking sites make kids more self-centered. Since Facebook and other sites give kids their own page which is about them, it leads some vulnerable kids to think that everything revolves around them, a precursor for emotional problems in their later life. This might also result in inability to empathize. These sites make kids prone to sensationalism. Thank you for reading my argument, please consider it.\",\n \"Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.\\nNeilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. \\\"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.\\\" Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) \\\"As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process.\\\" Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' \\\" says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are \\\"exploring and experimenting\\\" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. \\\"There's been a definite shift the last two months,\\\" she says. \\\"There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before.\\\" I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become \\\"friends\\\" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.\",\n \"Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of speech in social networking.\\n\\\"I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace.\\\" Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. It is because I agree with: Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, in the position that social contracts lead to well-being, that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution, Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Ought: used to express duty or moral obligation The highest value within today's round is well-being. Well-being is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare. Well-being is most important in today's round because it is a main thing the human race strives for, and it can be achieved with the use of a social contract. The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. - \\\"Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved \\\"friends\\\" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients \\\"in appropriate cases\\\" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. \\\"If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant,\\\" the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday.\\\" ~ http://www.lockergnome.com... There are many who have lost jobs and have gone through unnecessary stress due to inappropriate content they posted on their websites. Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. Social networking sites are no longer private. One must be aware of the risks they take while posting anything negative or displeasing on their website. Everything you do on the internet is cached and it may cost you your job and maybe even worse consequences. Soon, there will be no impunity with what you do. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. The benefits of behaving appropriately: •Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. •Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. •It may make a great first impression. The cons of behaving inappropriately: •Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. •Giving a poor first impression. •People may NOT find you appealing. It is obvious that the benefits supersede. Social networking sites can be used for your social benefit. You will often make good first impressions, and be respected. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. I have shown you that professional behavior on social networking sites may induce well being, but the resolution has a word in there that twists everything a lot for my argument. Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. These also can be replaced with should and removal of the infinitive (to); You should behave properly. You should go to sleep. The resolution doesn't say: \\\"Standards of professional behavior ARE to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.\\\" Ought means you are obliged. It is in your BEST INTEREST to behave that way. Do you absolutely have to? No. People can choose to behave properly. It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites, that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately, and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that well-being should be upheld and that Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.\",\n \"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America\\nImpact Definition 1a--> There are many definitions I agree. Which is why I urge you to accept both. To have a direct impact on AND to have a powerful effect. b--> Notice my opponents definitions anyway where he said, \\\"An impact could be direct or indirect.\\\"… Basically from this you should see that the impact is all dependent on the actor. The economy is indirect, and the child molester cases are a direct effect. Both of these are acceptable and both of them prove that social networking sites have a neutral impact because it ALL depends on the actor, something that isn't specified in the resolution. So impact can be a baseball bat. But a baseball bat is a tool, JUST LIKE a social networking site. c--> 1) It also says effect, please use that if impact in the impact definition is that bad of an ordeal. 2) That must mean that Webster's Dictionary isn't legit. Which is absolutely ridiculous. d--> If social networking sites were to have no members, then they would have no impact right? This is the same as hammers, guns, and even baseball bats. So if you even accept the positive influences of social networking sites of my opponent, then you must see that it has only been used well. The ACTOR has the impact NOT the TOOL. 2--> Ok, but you misinterpret my position which I'll get to later. 3--> Your entire position is based on the idea that tools are positive OR negative and can't be both. But what I have shown is that it is not the tool that decides this, it is the person. I have proven this through guns, baseball bats, hammers, and of course social networking sites. If you have yet to understand my position (judges), then think of it like this. Social Networking Sites, have BOTH types of impacts on us (positive AND negative). The impact that happens in a subjective case can be positive OR negative, but when you look at it objectively, you will see a mixture. Thus you can not determine the actual impact, but rather, notice the true determining factor. The user of the networking site. 3a--> Are you contending that the site of the social networking site helps our economy and fights the war on terror? If anything you have conceded the fact that it helps sexual predators. Also the gun did aid in the killing (just like the aiding of sexual predators), but it is not what had the impact. It is the one pulling the trigger or the one lying of his age and stealing a child to rape them. No difference. So would you contend that guns have a negative impact on society? Or would you agree with me that it is the shooter, not the tool that determines the positive or negative impact. 4--> Cross-apply the sexual predators and child-parent relationship harms against this point. It proves that \\\"on balance\\\" it is the user of the social networking site that causes the impact. 5--> EXACTLY! It has both positive and negative impacts, so how can you claim that \\\"Social Networking Sites have a positive impact on the United States\\\" when there are ALSO negative ones as well. Economy: 1) The USA Today link evidence only proves my point. That the newspaper sales have gone down and has generally switched to TV and Social Networking Sites. AKA: The Economy has been going up for Social Networking Sites and down for newspapers. A transfer from one to the other creates a net-benefit of nothing. And although the evidence points to a few sources, it fails to even talk about Social Networking Sites. Therefore, they could be a part of the downfall of Social Networking Sites. I for one know of several people who stop reading newspapers and rather use the internet to get their news. \\\"Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat.\\\"--> 2) I really don't think that the few pennies that people are saving from this minor change are not going to feed or not feed a family. It is nice, certainly, but not going to be the reason that I get to have chicken rather than chicken ramen noodles. ONE GROUP OF INCOME IS NOT GOING TO CREATE OR DESTROY THE ECONOMY! 3) 250,000 new social networking sites?!?! How can any legitimate jobs be created out of this? Not to mention that this will lead to a growing obesity rate :D … And those new fatties are probably the ones raping our children. \\\"Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad\\\"--> 4) Even if the judges agree that the positive outweigh the negative, you still can't claim that it is ONLY a positive impact (like the resolution asks for). In that case, the resolution shall be negated AS: \\\"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive AND NEGATIVE impact on the United States of America dependant on the user of the site.\\\" From this, you vote CON! Bullying: I got the evidence out of an evidence packet that gets sent to our school for our team. If it isn't legit, then you can bring it up with \\\"Squirrel Killers.\\\" 1) You're a friend with me on a Social Networking Site and you hardly even know me. Watch this… I hate you… Now you see that. I just bullied you and you had no choice in the matter. The site did nothing to prevent it and if we were in real life, I doubt I would have been able to even say it. This is because social networking sites make it so much easier over the internet. You can hurt someone just as much without having to say it in person. A lot easier for mean people like me ;) 2) You claim that there is no net-impact. But look to the situation where some neighbor parents pushed a girl to suicide through a social networking sites. This would not have happened in real life since they couldn't pretend to be someone (like they were). Thus there ARE impacts because of social networking sites. Sexual Predators: \\\"Mostly people that they know\\\"--> -As you can tell, we are now friends on a social networking site and we do not know each other. There are several people that I have \\\"met\\\" online and I know others who have as well. -Therefore the sexual predator arguments still stand. Please flow through the evidence and by this, you can further see the inherent negative impacts which thus proves that it is all dependant on the user of the tool (in this situation, the social networking site being used by sexual predators… They have a negative impact just like the advertisers and small business people have a positive impact. They use the tool good OR bad and the tool doesn't determine ANYTHING. Terrorism: \\\"Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents\\\"--> -Which is why bullying has such a powerful impact on social networking sites. Please cross-apply this statement on the bullying line of arguing. -Also, are you saying that we ought not be concerned with kids learning from their parents? Users of social networking sites are getting younger and younger. It will only be some time before everything is learned online (from my opponents statement). This is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing. Kids must learn from their parents. \\\"4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins\\\"--> -The War on Terrorism argument was ONLY linked to the economy which was argued earlier. -We are not going to win or lose the war on terror because we do or do not have social networking sites. Nor is there going to make that big of a difference. Such as I proved before with the economy. Democracy: There was good debate on the candidates (positive) and some unnecessary slanderous videos on the presidential candidates. Because of this, you MUST see that there are both positive AND negative impacts DEPENDING on the user of the tool (of social networking sites). Because of this, I urge you to vote CON! Thank you for this GREAT debate!\",\n \"social media\\nIt is a good way to keep in touch with people, but people get used to talking to people online so when they have to talk face-to-face it is difficult. People also say things to others that they wouldn't say to their face and that is when problems with bullying happens.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.\\nThis is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them. Because the resolution states \\\"That, on balance\\\" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate. That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.\",\n \"on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses\\nHe has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet. \\\" my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t. v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet? for my second contention, my opponent stated \\\"I agree with my opponent in one thing. \\\"they need people to know about what they offer\\\". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls. \\\" first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- now i would like to go onto attacking my opponents case for his first contention he said\\\"While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk. SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. \\\"A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U. S. prosecutors. The U. S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering \\\"Executive Dating\\\" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services. \\\" Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless. SOURCE: . http://www.king5.com...; he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information. they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer. my opponent said in his second contention:\\\"The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people. \\\" he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not. now for my conclusion: in conclusion the resolution states: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses. which means that i have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, my opponent stated the harms of viruses and that it is unpredictable, but i have already attacked those arguments. my opponent has tried to attack my case saying that there are better methods, but i have already defended that, and the other methods aren't even reliant to this debate, the resolution is only talking about the internet and nothing else. my opponent said that there are other ways to get information,but as i have already stated we aren't talking about anything else other than the internet. i have proven the benefits of the internet to businesses, and i have attacked the harms, so, that means that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, so that is why i urge you to please vote for the affermitive in this debate thanks, -bored123456\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.\\nThis is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.\",\n \"Social networks are beneficial to our society!\\nTo start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the \\\"hit-maker\\\" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber\\\"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a \\\"contagion\\\" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think \\\"social media helps solve crimes more quickly. \\\" [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, \\\"Never Seconds,\\\" which exposed the state of her school\\\"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of \\\"Friends of Never Seconds\\\" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to \\\"lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. \\\" [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported \\\"at least one measurable business benefit. \\\" For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]\\\"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands,\\\" www. briansolis. com [3]\\\"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives,\\\" www. commonsensemedia. org [5]\\\"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool,\\\" Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]\\\"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media,\\\" www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, \\\"Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking,\\\" www. nsba. org [8] \\\"The Case for Social Media in Schools,\\\" www. mashable. com [10] \\\"The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy,\\\" www. jobvite. com [12]\\\"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey,\\\" www. jobvite. com [13]\\\"Generations 2010,\\\" www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, \\\"Move Over Youngsters, Grandma\\\"s on Facebook,\\\" www. newswise. com [16] \\\"Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist,\\\" Forbes Asia Magazine [17]\\\"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts,\\\" www. nea. gov [18] \\\"How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education,\\\" Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] \\\"Skype and the Embedded Librarian,\\\" Library Technology Reports [21]\\\"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users,\\\" www. blog. edmodo. com [22]\\\"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites,\\\" USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]\\\"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing,\\\" www. lexisnexis. com [24]\\\"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force,\\\" www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]\\\"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation,\\\" www. usatodayeducate. com [28]\\\"How Social Media Saved the Economy,\\\" www. technorati. com [30]\\\"Twitter,\\\" www. topics. nytimes. com [31]\\\"Facebook, Public Education and Equity\\\"www. dm [33]\\\"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research\\\" www. guardian. co. uk [34]\\\"Social Media and Voting\\\",www. pewinternet. org [35]\\\"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media,\\\" s1. intuitstatic. com\",\n \"society going into decline\\nSociety is winding down into chaos and disorder.In almost all sphere\\\"s of life and public relations.Kids are totally without discipline and most people dont seem to care. with social media running rampant what chance do people have, its all about how people look, how many friends they have got. Society is turning more and more sour people are being groomed for hate. If you think society is getting better please debate, becauce all I see is chaos,rebellion and disorder.\",\n \"Students should use social networking\\n1. Social media can be a distraction in class The first concern that comes to mind when using social media in the classroom is how it will be a major distraction to the students during lessons. Students could easily be sidetracked from an assignment and it could be difficult for teachers to tell who is paying attention or not. 2. Improper use of social media in the classroom Students might take advantage of being able to access social media in the classroom and use it for personal interactions instead of for school related activities. If students are not closely monitored it will be hard to know how if they are using social media properly during class time. 3. Using social media in the classroom can detract from human interaction If students are encouraged to participate in class discussions through social media websites this could impact their ability to interact in face to face situations. Students still need to learn how to have conversations with people even in this modern technology based world. 4. Cyber bullying on social media websites Some students have experienced cyber bullying through social media websites. If social media is allowed in schools this could increase cyber bullying where students write hurtful messages targeting other students. 5. Posting inappropriate content on social media websites One of the reasons social media sites are not allowed in schools is because it is difficult to monitor how students use social media sites. A student may post inappropriate content such as pornography or foul language which would be both distracting and damaging to students.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["social networking sites should be banned..!!! Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.","social media good for young children I cannot agree with you more in the sense that it must be used appropriately but I do not believe that the benefits of Social Media in any way shape or form can outweigh the negatives aspects and dangers it Poses to children. The internet is a terrible place, filled with terrible people, when you allow children to access social media you are allowing children to be let into the same world as pedophiles and child predators. This is putting children in so much danger. Child pornography is already a major issue in today's society. As the topic of the debate implies, it will be YOUNG children that you propose will be using social media. Young children are not aware of the threats and risks of being online, they are the MOST vulnerable targets for these predators. Without proper education - We may be putting our Children in an enormous amount of danger by letting them online.","Facebook encourages socialisation One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems. Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1) Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2) (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012 http://www.jcr-admin.org/files/pressPDFs/112712180022_Stephen_Article.pdf (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212001409","Social Media Time restrictions for 18 and under No,this is not violation of our constitutional rights. Yes,social media is a form of a free speech and it is a good platform of those speaker who really wanted to put their own thoughts in front of all people .In today's days our young generation spend their crucial time on social media like chatting with their friends for long hours. In today's days online crime is spreading over internet and many young people is trapped in their web's.According to doctors while sitting for long hours in front of computers without taking break causes a many health problems like computer vision syndrome , sleep disorders, obesity & stress disorders . by this new bill which has been proposed in congress our young generation will be safe .they will not able to use social media for long hours .So they can utilize their crucial time by studying and spent their time with family also . and they can play outdoor games which is beneficial for their health . In other word we can say that it will be benefited for our society because young generation is our coming future of our nation and society . Lastly I would say that this bill is beneficial for young generation along with our society and nation.","Screens make us feel more isolated than we really are. My opponent has forfeited and therefore not fulfilled his BoP He also doesn't take into account that social networking sites, Such as Facebook, Twitter, Viber, and Skype, as well as DDO, grants us the opportunity to interact with family and friends from all over the world, at any given moment. I hope Pro makes an argument in the third round.","social media is bad You can\"t swing an iPhone without hitting a dozen studies about how social media is making us depressed, killing our relationships and depriving us of sleep. But it\"s not ALL bad news. Sure, there\"s no doubt that researchers have found some significant downsides to thinking in 140-character quips and holding a little rectangle a foot from our faces for 90 percent of our waking hours. But there\"s more to social media than an endless parade of Instagram-induced FOMO. And when it comes to health and happiness, some of the negative impacts of social media are actually balanced out by some awesome benefits. Check them out below\"and don\"t forget to share this article, obviously: Social media helps the elderly feel less isolated. Ever feel alone in the middle of a crowded Facebook thread? For many of us, social media can sometimes make us feel lonely and isolated. But for the elderly, a Facebook account can have the opposite effect. A UK project looked at the impact that having a computer would have on a group of participants aged 60-95 years old\"and the effects were fantastic. Those trained on using a computer experienced heightened feelings of self-competence, participated more in social activity, had improved cognitive capacity and showed a better sense of personal identity. \"People who are socially isolated or who experience loneliness are more vulnerable to disease and decline,\" explained Dr. Thomas Morton, the project lead. \"For these reasons finding ways to support people\"s social connections is a really important goal. This study shows how technology can be a useful tool for enabling social connections, and that supporting older people in our community to use technology effectively can have important benefits for their health and well-being.\"","Social networking sites are harmful. I would like to point out that my opponent has said that social networking sites allow people at 10+, that is a lie sites have restricted people to be at least 13 to be allowed onto these sites and that is because 10 year olds wouldn't know what to do if strangers tried to be friends with them or if they became cyber-stalked and that is because they wouldn't be responsible or mature enough to know what to do in that situation. You also said that people do get harmed form cyber bullying so your saying that everyone that gets bullied on the Internet goes how do I put it crazy? you are just putting it out there that you wouldn't be ashamed to say that someone has gone crazy to many people. harmful shouldn't really be the word used to define social networking sites but then again no word would really suit. When you are on social networking sites you can do many things that are good like talk to friends and family without a problem, or share photos from another country. facebook or titer can be used to say in touch with people all around the world for free or you could just call them for say $1 per minute if they're on the other side of the world, then again it would be nice hearing their voice but they'll hear yours when you get the phone bill, but meh that doesn't matter you could just go on facebook and talk to them. That would be so much easier, guess what else it is.... easy to use for all those technology challenged people simple like a wave of a wand or a swish of the wrist.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Unless my opponent has any objections, the parameters for this debate will be as follows: 1. \"Social networking websites\" are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. 2. \"The United States\" will not be contrained merely to a body of government or a geographical region, but to society, businesses, people, etc. One last note: I would urge the consideration of anecdotal accounts to be considered in a logical rather than emotional fashion. Social networking is a thing of the future, a revolutionary concept that will transform the current world. Social networking has evolved from not only a place to meet your friends and mingle, but to a place where businesses are run, deals are made, and contracts are completed. In addition, the networks enhance communication and encourage people from different parts of the world to converse and interact. Also, the network has its educational benefits as well. Students who use social networking learn important skills to help them survive in the 21st century such as managing websites, editing videos, making use of other technological skills. The use of social networking tools as part of everyday working life has led to an increase in efficiency in the workplace. According to Dynamic Markets, Of those employees using social networking tools in the workplace, 65% say that it has made them and/or their colleagues more efficient. And 45% say that it has sparked ideas and creativity for them personally. Businesses use SNS for collaboration sites on intranets, internal forums within the company, company-produced video material shared on intranets, online social networks like LinkedIn and external collaboration sites on the Web and internal blogging sites. Benefits include increasing an individual's knowledge; giving access to products to problems; harnessing the collective knowledge of employees, customers and suppliers; stimulating team building; and better internal collaboration. In addition, businesses like Best Buy who use social networking increase their employee retention rates by making employees feel like they belong. There are far-reaching educational benefits of social networking. Christine Greenhow, researcher at the University of Minnesota, explains that \"[S]tudents using social networking sites are actually practicing the kinds of 21st century skills we want them to develop to be successful today.\" Also, according to a study conducted by Childnet International, teachers and students alike could set-up online \"study groups\" and students can use them to collaborate together on group projects and assignments. Social networking helps to encourage student engagement and increase participation, encourages online discussion amongst students outside of school, and provides students with a sense of ownership and engagement which often leads to an improved quality of work. Furthermore, Social Networking sites may increase an individual's self-confidence. As BusinessWeek says, \"When people are bullied they often don't feel confident about speaking to people face to face about what is going on - whereas doing it online is quite easy.\" Social networking Web sites can help shy people come out of their shells by teaching them how to interact with others in a safe, online environment. Social Networking has substantial benefits that greatly outweigh and hindrances there might be. Because of this, I ask you to AFFIRM the resolution.","social media is a boon I believe, that in some ways, social media is a boon. Whilst I see your point that social media does a lot of harm, I also believe that it does a little more good. These are the 4 main points for my argument: 1. Social media helps people stay interconnected with one another and allows them to talk to each other from long distances away. 2. Social media, for educational purposes, can allow students to chat with each other and make forums to help each other with their educational pursuits. 3. Social media is a good way for people to post what is on their mind and just, vent. When people are having a bad day, nowadays, they take to social media to share it with somebody. People were made to talk to others about their feelings, not to hold them in. 4. People are social beings, and social media gives people another way to socialise with one another in an easy and relatively reliable way.","Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good My position should be obvious. I am here to negate the resolution, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that social networking does not cause more harm than good.My opponent may begin their argument.","Is social media cause more harm than good I didn't say there is no positive effect that comes from social media.But there aren't so many good thing that comes from social media and sometimes bad outweighs good.Ofcourse social media make us wider connection but it also cause danger to society,Many criminal has use social media as a searching tool for victims,and the sad fact is the most of the target victims are young people especially kids.Many crime occur in social media.","Social networking sites are beneficial Thanks for judging :)","Social networks are beneficial to our society! I understand Pro feels strongly about this issue.I have a facepage account myself and I can tell you that they are not beneficial. For example:i) I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens ii) The people I hate keep bugging me !!iii) I am addictediv) Some nutters get to go on them.v) The Labour party have a fakebook page.VI) FACEBOOK is a social networkVII) FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction [1].VIII) FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \"look at me, I did this\" \"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\" etc etc etc [2]IX) FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc. The problem comes when we wear this mask so much that we lose who we really are [3]. Then people only know us for the mask, and to not surprise them, we continue it.End of argument.Source[1] (The first video)[2] ibid[3] ibid","Social networking sites are beneficial Thanks again, Dicsync for debating this with me, and thanks judges for viewing and critiquing this debate. I'll start right off by further depending my points, and answering my opponents rebuttal. 1st: My opponent agrees cyberbullying is a real problem, and has to be addressed, yet still continues to argue that social media is beneficial. Interesting. 2nd: Regardless of the \"excitement\" of moments on a persons Facebook, it's the idea that these people tend to hype up their own experiences to yet again value \"likes\" as acceptance. Also, no basis has been provided that allow you to say \"society is growing\" and no proof what people like to take pictures of. Regardless of this, it's not about the excitement of posts, but more about the experiences. I believe I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood, when i said \"excitement,\" as I only meant that people would post about their favorite moments, to brag in a way, whether it be at Disneyland, the White House, or simply in a \"nice, cozy cafe.\" The scenario doesn't change in this situation, as different people like different things. However, it is widely known that people will post pictures/posts simply to impress their audience, and reach this satisfaction. Now I'll be refuting my opponents 2nd and 3rd points. REBUTTAL P2: \"Social Networking sites *CAN* be diverse.* My opponent uses social media as a simple road to communication, whether it be to meet strangers, learn about others, or simply talk to friends. As this may be good, I ask the judges, is this \"social\" interaction as valuable as face-to-face correspondence? My opponent uses social media as not a way to simplify meeting others, but rather a way to hide behind a screen, while attempting to be what we define as \"social.\" Now I understand, there are situations in which social media may be good. But the fact of this rebuttal, combined with previous points, and the educational detriments that come with this (which I'll be covering next paragraph), any benefit that sprouts from social media falls when combined to it's numerous detriments. REBUTTAL P3: \"Educational benefits of social networking sites\" Winston Churchhill once said: \"However beautiful the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results.\" My opponent may try to paint a pretty picture in your head of how beneficial the fast download speed of a smartphone really is in a classroom, but let's think logically and practically about this. As a high schooler, I can confirm that social media is rarely EVER used for educational purposes. The 60% of educational posts most likely sprout from insults to teachers/subjects or even asking for help from others (which would be cheating, another possible problem with social media- but we won't go into that). This percentage is not only ambiguous, but could be inherently flawed. Lastly- all this^ rebuttal was to the intent of that contention, however my opponent did not evaluate \"social media\" during this contention, but rather technology and smartphones, which are not related. Let me add before I move on: \"Connolly cautions that students who use social networking tools might pay significant hidden cognitive costs. Facebook, Google, and other web services simultaneously seize and fragment our attention. They can subvert higher-order reasoning processes, including the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence necessary for critical thinking and intellectual development. Some researchers have correlated heavy Internet use with greater impulsivity, less patience, less tenacity, and weaker critical thinking skills. The need to rapidly shift from object to object online can weaken students\" ability to control their attention. Prolonged Internet use exposes students to interactive, repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure and function.\"(1) Remaining argument: My opponent makes the following link: social media > great job. Not only is there no substantial studies or evidence to support this, but it is inherently false, when looking at source (1). My opponent uses professors to support his evidence, using their opinion, and what they \"believe.\" As opinions are great and beliefs are beneficial, no opinion can overcome the substantial evidence of detriments provided in source (1). For all these reasons- vote con. Thank you. (1) http://www.wcer.wisc.edu...","Is social media cause more harm than good The mistakes of the minority should not impact the majority. When used correctly, many of the problems don't occur. Facebook and countless other social media websites have plenty of security features which are able to prevent such crimes from happening. This is also why there are age restrictions (usually 13+) on most of these websites to ensure that the users are mostly competent enough to ensure there own safety (or at least their parents/guardians are). For the bad to outweigh the good, I would think that a large percentage of people would have had to have been affected by such attacks/such crimes, lets say 1/3+ of active users. For Facebook that would mean that 470,000,000 out of the 1.44 billion monthly active users would have to have been affected to safely say that social media sites cause more bad than good, which is not the case.","Social media does more harm than good Thank you! In conclusion social media does NOT do more harm than good, here's why: Reason #1 it helps prompte young and small businesses. Reason #2 social media allows people to connect to people from far away and also start new relationships. Reason #3 social media can be a stepping stone to advance ones career and find like-minded individuals. Social media doesn't spread misinformation anymore than misinformation was spread 100 years ago. People who are not curious and open minded will believe what they want regardless of what they are told. If someone says something, or you see someone post information you believe is wrong then look it up. You'll get better at researching over time and help further prevent the spread of misinformation. Just don't be afraid to make mistakes! People are also just as antisocial today as they were in the past. People that are antisocial are that way because it's a part of who they are, nothing wrong with it. Social media has not changed these people or harmed them. Emily, would you accept a friend request if I sent one?","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Also, the links my opponent posted lead only to the homepage of their respective sites, I would appreciate it if she would repost the correct ones next round. \"Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. \" First of all, this claim is not backed by a statistic. Similar to one of my opponent's contentions in Round 1, in order for us to weigh this impact, we need to have a sense of the relative impact that this is having. Without these statistics, we are forced to judge from an uncertain viewpoint. In addition, these \"effects\" that social networking sites have are not unique. They can be replicated with phones, IM, chat rooms, fax, email, etc. The exchange of communication that my opponent describes could just as easily have been done with any of the aforementioned methods, rendering this actual impact little-to-none. \"Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. \" Based on their searches? In context, it would be more apparent what this means, but due to the bad link I'll assume that you are referring to advertisers digging into the personal files of a record, ignoring the user's privacy, in order to attempt to further their business. In actuality, these advertisements are not very effective. According to adweek. com, just 57% of social networking users report clicking on an ad over the past year. In comparison, 79% of all web users report clicking on an ad. Also, adweek. com shows that the online ads on social networks pulled in only 11 percent of users for purchases (as opposed to 23 percent for the web overall). Also, users \"who frequents a site for 150 pageviews per session several times per week will get accustomed to the ads, layout, etc… and ignore them (adotas. com). \" \"In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. \" To understand the fallacy of this argument, it is important to know to difference between causation and correlation. Simply put, causation is when there is an action that has an effect of something else, while correlation is an action which is followed by an event/action/whatever. When correlated, the first thing does not necessarily cause the other; the event following the first may just be a coincidence. In context, this means that Barack Obama winning the younger vote does not directly result from social network usage. It could very well be from the age difference between Obama and McCain, or from a completely different cause such as heavier advertising on teen-frequented channels on TV. Also, when evaluating the impact of this, one must also consider that an extra method for a politician to campaign that is useful once every four years does not have a large impact in the grand scheme of things. \"- The first amendment to the constitution states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. \" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. \" The legality of social networking sites is of no relevance in this debate. \"-If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. \" There is the same lack of statistics in this contention as well. Without any statistics (like how many lives were changed? how much expansion of one's social horizon is there? ) we cannot validly consider this argument. \"Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. \" The popularity of social networking websites also has no relevance in this discussion. To support my own contentions. .. My opponent seems to have one thematic problem with my points - that social networking sites aren't at fault, but that the users are at fault. However, it is actually irrelevant whose fault it is. The resolution calls for the impact of the existence of these sites. The fact is, if these sites did not exist, all of these detriments would not exist. Whether or not users have been using the sites as intended is not important; what is important is what is happening. 1. \"However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government. )\" The reality is that they are not being used correctly, and are not having a positive impact. 2. \"- As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. \" It may not be used in the right context, but the fact is that it is still used, and it is still having ahuge impact. Here is the source - . http://www.cnn.com... The idea of that statistic is to get a general idea for how much business time is wasted. 3. \"-Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [. http://signups.myspace.com......] \" Even though they may not be for kids, the reality is that kids *are* going on such sites and *are* being negatively impacted 4. \"My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK\" \"My opponent has given no source to support this scenario\" . http://www.isafe.org... . http://safety.lovetoknow.com... I am confused as to specifically which scenario as I mentioned a few. Here is the Megan Meier source: . http://abcnews.go.com... 5. \"My opponent said, \"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. \" This is the fault of the individual and not the site. \" Again the sites are impacting the users, no matter whose fault it is. In summation, I urge a Con ballet because my opponent has not provided any substantive rebuttals to my contentions a","social media I understand how people may misuse social media, but that should not be an argument against its good use. If it is used correctly, sites like facebook and twitter can be helpful to people with very little danger. Also, social media can help people in dangerous situations by connecting many people to work together. (Such as Amber Alerts). The Boston police even used twitter to keep others informed of the dangers of the bombings to keep others safe.","Social networking is good for students Social networking is good for students because it helps kids do better in school. Half of all \"students use social networking to discuss homework assignments\" (National School Board Association). According to Georgia Middle School in Portland, Oregon, \"grades went up by 50% after students joined a social networking site\" (Kessler). 59% of students talk about educational topics online (National School Board Association). Because social media exists, students are \"learning practical skills that are necessary for success in today\"s wired world,\" (Huffington). Some people may think social media users have lower grades however, that is only shown as accurate if they are heavy users. Responsible users increase their awareness of news and important events. And as much as it helps in school, it also can help personal relationships. Social networking is good for students because it improves relationships and help students make new friends. Research shows that 70% of adults use social networking to stay connected to friends and family (Solis). Social media can help students \"make friends by allowing them to gain familiarity with others and build friendships online\" (Huffington). According to a study in 2011, a little less than half of the average Facebook users\" friends consist of friends from high school or college (Hampton). Even though some people think that they can lose friends because of social media, \"half (52%) of all teen social media users say using such media has mainly helped their relationships with friends, compared to just 4% who say social media use has mainly hurt their relationships. Similarly, more than a third (37%) say social media use has mainly helped their relationships with family members, compared to 2% who say it has mainly hurt them. In addition, a majority of teens say social media help them keep in touch with friends they can\"t see regularly (88%), get to know other students at their school better (69%), and connect with new people who share a common interest (57%)\" (Common Sense Media). More people use social media sites to stay in contact with friends. It is apparent that social media is beneficial in school and in personal relationships. But there are even other benefits for society. Social media is important because it created a socialistic change. Never before have people been connected in this way. It has caused all ages of people to want to get engaged in the medium. To this day, students are becoming experienced with technology \"developing their creative ability, appreciating new and different perspectives and enhancing their communication skills\" (Huffington). Because there are so many social media users, people have had to re-learn how to communicate with each other. However, some people think social networking is \"ruining the world.\" People believe that everyone spends less time in face-to-face conversations when there are social media sites where people can interact. However, there are also sites where people can meet new people or reconnect with people. Certainly there are other reasons why people think social media is ruining the world such as cyberbullying and decaying writing skills. Cyberbullying is very serious but if students don\"t put themselves in danger or if they tell a trusted adult what was happening, those issues would be less of a problem. Writing skills have changed dramatically because of some of the communication shortcuts encouraged by social media. Students may write \"u\" instead of actually spelling out the word \"you\" on school papers. But research shows that social media is actually helping the world and economy. People use social media to find jobs. New media such as Linked In show that 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through this site (HR Focus). Social media sites have also been shown to empower women and help them find jobs. That translates to high school students as well, who learn about job openings and opportunities through Linked In and other sites. It provides a new opportunity for students to learn about job openings.","Facebook has a negative impact on learning On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making. If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence. Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1) (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011 http://allfacebook.com/is-facebook-good-or-bad-for-students-debate-roils-on_b41357","Expression Through Social Media (good/bad) Your point 'rather the fault of the user', but what does that mean. Social networking has changed the people. It encourages people to be more open about themselves and let go of all their information. Speaking of privacy and your other point 'used the way the user wants it to be used', it is ridiculous. More than 95% of the people who use social media don't read the terms and services for more than 10 seconds. The website is free to do whatever it wants with its users and their private information can be leaked to the website's sponsors.","Social media relates school to life. School is supposed to prepare children for life and yet it is completely disconnected from it. This is necessary to a certain extent so that pupils are safe and can concentrate on their work but it is taken to the extreme. Pupils are hardly allowed to socialise and frequently can't even discuss work with each other during lessons. Social media sites are a good bridge between school and the outside world because you can still focus the class on useful learning activities such as finding the latest news and reactions to it, or submitting work to be reviewed by a wider audience.","Banning social net. sites at school I agree, that banning social networking sites will NOT make common playground problems go away (bullying, suicide, etc.). In fact, as a high school student myself, I've never even seen hard core cyber bullying. The only reason I agree with the banning of social net. sites at school is because students don't get any school work done if they have access to sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. I have been a victim of internet distractions myself, and although my school has not voiced any more complaints about these sites, I can see a YouTube ban in the near future.","does social media effect society in a good way I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for challenging me to debate this interesting topic and I duly accept his parameters for the arguments. As my opponent pointed out, there are some limited benefits that may accrue from social networking sites and I certainly agree that under the supervision of a teacher, forums can be set up within which students from geographically remote locations can exchange ideas and knowledge. What is more difficult to accept is that employees accessing these sites for personal use during working hours makes them more efficient. Would an employee who spends their time chatting on the phone to their friends instead of getting on with their work be considered more efficient? I doubt it. That is why many companies limit the use of both phones and computers for non-business reasons. http://www.net-security.org... http://mashable.com... I must also disagree with the Businessweek journalist's assertion that these sites help shy people to increase their self-confidence within a safe environment. The best way to increase one's self-confidence is to go out and actually meet real people and talk to them in person. In addition, getting out and about is much healthier than sitting indoors in front of a computer screen! As regards security, social networking sites are much favoured by paedophiles who use them to \"groom\" their victims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Shall we consider Debate.org, for example? It can act as a quasi-social networking site through its forums. This site is, I hope, safe from sexual predators as it is very well moderated in that respect. However, there are no age restrictions and many members are younger than 18 years old – although I'm not. As it happens, on my user profile I quote my real name and age and display a recent photograph of myself, but there is nothing to stop a sex pest from setting up an account and lying about his age and name and using a photograph of someone much younger than himself in the hope of luring one of the younger and more impressionable members into a face-to-face meeting. It would be hard to do on this site, but Facebook and MySpace provide ample opportunities for computer-literate kiddy-fiddlers. So, although these sites do have some positives and access to them certainly shouldn't be restricted (except, perhaps, in some workplaces) on balance, social networking sites do not have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you.","Facebook: A Boon For the Society Dear Readers, Today I stand for the topic \"Facebook: A Boon For the Society\". Before to jump to the main body, I would like to make some clarifications: * Facebook: Facebook is a social networking website that was originally designed for college students, but is now open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Facebook users can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Friends can browse the profiles of other friends and write messages on their pages. * Society: A group of individuals living as members of a community. Reasons for Classifying Facebook as A Boon For The Society: 1. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LEARN, EXPLORE AND DISCOVER THE WORLD AROUND THEM. Facebook allows people to discover the world present around them. In this rat-race, where people compete each other for money and status; making new friends and discovering new possibilities of relationship is almost impossible (I used the term almost). Facebook provides a quick solution to this problem. It allows people to contact each other from any place- home, houses, schools and others private/public places. 2. ALLOWS VIDEO CONFERENCING: THE NEXT GENERATION INTERVIEWS. Video Conferencing is a feature of Facebook, which allows people from any corner of the world communicate with each other. This communication when is supplemented by voice and video, is termed as Video Conferencing. *** DUE TO SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING MY TIME MANAGEMENT; I END MY ARGUMENT HERE TODAY. BUT I PROMISE TO COME BACK WITH MORE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. *** Sources: http://www.techterms.com...","Social Media is bad Thanks for being my opponent on our first debate Luca. There are many reasons why social media is good for people and not bad. I would like to start off with this quote, \"Smart phones and social media expand our universe. We can connect with others or collect information easier and faster than ever.\" -Daniel Goleman. With social media we are able to see what every person on this world (that have some type of social media of course) is up to with their lives. Your able to talk to friends/family that live far away, doesn't that amaze you? I look forward to seeing your response.","Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture It's fair to say that Social Media does have a few things bad here and there, but it's not the worst thing in the world. In my opinion, it has to be used in a good way. If humans learn to not abuse the system, it will be fair to use. Social Media is somewhere were people have a bad time, they can go anonymous and enjoy themselves. If you have a bad day at school, spending some time online will give you back your confidence and refill your energy- just like you how you refill a car. It's also something you can use when there's nothing else to do. Heck- I'm debating right now because the next best thing I can do is stare the wall of my room. Yes, interacting face-to-face is a better way to make friends, but don't you already talk to everyone every day at school? I can see from your view, that it's been abused by humans for generations, but there will be something a moral lesson taught one day that Social Media isn't everything in life.","Social Media Although the basic use of social media is imperative to our society, abuse is also apart of the here and now. You say that social media allows us to interact with others we may not be able to see everyday, but it also allows people we don't even know to obtain information about our personal lives. The social networking website, Facebook, is a great way to keep updated on the lives of family and friends who may not be near by, but if you do not set your privacy settings anybody who has a Facebook account can access your information, family photos, your location at the time you posted a status. It is amazing in keeping connected, but is it really worth the risk of letting a stranger know everything about you and your family?","social networks are more harm than good People have come to treat social networks as a new means for communicating with others. When we contact others via Twitter, Facebook or any other site, we expect that we’ll hear back from those people or companies just as we do when we send an email or leave a voicemail. The problem is that many people and companies don’t. I see it all the time in my personal use of these networks. You get bad service or need to get in touch with a person/company and find them on a social network. You then contact them and wait to hear back — often you never get a response. In other cases, you may hear back days or weeks later. These folks did their part and set up accounts to promote their business, but in being unresponsive, they just did themselves a great deal of harm. If you’ve got a profile, people will expect that you are going to be responsive on that network.","That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States\" I reserve the right top clarify 1st Round (Evidence and the case) 2nd Round Rebuttal 1. Social Networking web sites Definition www. techlearning. com/story/showArticle. php this is where people develop networks of friends and associates. It forges and creates links between different people. 2. impact- strong effect: the powerful or dramatic effect that something or somebody has . http://encarta.msn.com... An impact could be direct or indirect List of Positive impacts 1. Economy . http://www.usatoday.com... Social Networks are boosting economy through helping businesses advertise. Social networks account for billions of dollars 2. Democracy Social networking web sites help people exchange ideas and ultimately spread their beliefs and in result the democratic beliefs are the ones being spread to places like China. Therefore social networking websites are key to increasing number of democracies Social networking websites also help people organize and politically participate this leads to increased participation in US democracy, past 2-3 election prove 3. Terrorism and wars 1. A better economy is key to battle terrorism . http://www.linktv.org... \"(U. S. ) Amin remembers that eight years ago we had a budget surplus-- and now our deficit is huge. If we can solve the economic problem, other problems will diminish. \" 2. A strong democracy is key to solve war and terrorism . http://www.foxnews.com... Democracy is the answer (to terrorism). We will solve all the problems. We have a situation. We have issues. We've got problems. But we will solve them and we will rise to the occasion. And, democracies don't go to war with other democracies, so if the number of democracies increases the number of likely incidents around the world decreases.","Social networking sites are harmful. As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +! It is disgraceful! Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'","Social Networking Sites are Harmful I am for this! These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong!","Social networking is good for students Social Networking, I believe, can prove to be a distraction to low-performance students. I understand that SN can be used for productive purposes such as group projects and class communication, but it can also be abused and overused. With the growing digital society today, our current generation of students is highly susceptible to its ever-growing influence. Almost anyone in the urban or sub-urban setting in any population dense area has Internet connection and devices that could make use of such i.e. smartphones, PCs, and laptops. Any student has access to this and can be quite handy research materials(Let's not forget Wikipedia and Google) but can also be a way for the student to deviate from his studies. Of course, not all students are the same. There are those who manage their time and know when and when not to use SN without sacrificing precious study time or any time that involves his education for that matter. But we must also consider the ones whose performance is below average. Sure, SN will certainly help him with communicating with his classmates but this will only come to a productive result if he discusses matters involving projects or anything involving his current education. We must consider that low grade students or any other student can abuse SN. They can talk about mundane matters for hours, concerning their lives and their problems. Not minutes, hours. And one more serious matter: Cyberbullying. SN has become the leading medium for Cyberbullying and we all know that bullying has serious effects over the life of a student, especially those who cannot stand up for themselves. The communication brought about by SN is very quick and so will the negative messages come at the same pace. And not only will these messages come almost instantaneously, it can be published to his fellow peers wherein he will be subject to public humiliation both in cyberspace and in the classroom environment. I say that SN should be given time by the student if he is already finished with the work that he has for the day. SN can both amplify and destroy a student's image in his class. Teamwork and peer connection is a crucial element in a student's life. SN must be used moderately.","Social networking has a negative impact on communities. Social networking has a negative impact on communities. It increases cyberbullying, suicide and obesity.","Social media does more harm than good I wouldn't go to the extreme in saying that the world would be a better place if smart phones and social media didn't exist at all. I do agree that there are plenty of benefits to social media; however, I am stating that it is doing society more harm than good. You talk about how newspapers caused a disconnection between people before. But that doesn't mean that social media makes it anymore better. It's the concept that two wrongs don't make it right. You talk about people being extroverted vs introverted. Sure people can have welcoming faces and you can tell a lot how approachable someone is by body language and facial expressions. However, I argue that it is harder to tell if someone is approachable when their face is glued to their phone. When you mention that if you want more social interactions give them the feeling you are willing to engage in conversation, I believe that means that people have to be willing to put down their pieces of technology and engage in the real world. Congratulations with you and your significant other! You two were able to use social media as an aid as a form of communications you were able engage. But often times, social media becomes the only form of communication for a lot of relationships. I argue that these types of relationships are not genuine. It is hard to distinguish whether these relationships that are soley in the social media realm are meaningful. I think it does take the ability to have interactions beyond just social media in order for a relationship to be genuine between two people. I have enjoyed arguing with you and you have brought up some valid points. I think depending on ones point of view that there are unlimited pros and cons for social media. After this debate, I don't think that social media should be removed completely but it should be redefined on how its used. I think because it is making our society more antisocial in the real world and more social in the cyber community, we need to be less engrossed in it. I think we should use it as a tool to encourage more face to face interactions. Your example of how you met your significant other is a great example of it being used as tool. The issue is that our society doesn't use social media for just that and I think that is why social media is doing us more harm than good.","Social Networking Good Morning, and thank you for welcoming me. To begin the second round of our debate, I will first demolish my opponents case, then move on to my own. I- My opponents first conjunction what that Social Networking Web Sites are beneficial to Americans. I do agree with my opponent that people need people. But long before we had social networking sites we had other ways of communicating. We picked up a phone, or wrote an actual letter. Have Americans become so lazy that they can't do this? II- The second conjunction of my opponent's case was that social networking is a balance between child's privacy and the parents right to know. Every parent wants to think that their child is smart enough to know what to post and do online. Unless you plan to sit with your child every time they use the computer, and watch their every move you can't insure they are doing exactly what they say. Another fact is that, if you don't allow your child access to the internet at home, they may be getting online and using social networking sites at friends' houses. --As my opponent brought up, a child can receive private messages online from anyone. On facebook and/or myspace, you don't have to have a person as a friend to send them messages. III- My opponents last point is that social networking provide a degree of online safety. As many people seem to forget, social networking sites allow you to search any name, place, or group. It is a lot easier for you to search a random name, or look for a person in your area on a social networking site because they give you results. As for IM, you have to know a persons complete address to add them. You can't just type in a name and get their email. So social networking sites allow easier access to persons information. While we are talking about gaining persons information, social networking sites have many categories that you fill out, along with name (first and last), age, and where you live/hometown. This allows shady characters to find you, and follow you. And they could potentially steal information about you. Now to move on to my case. I- Social Networking Sites effect children's education. With more and more social networking sites being created, children are using them more. When children get home one of the first things they do is log into their \"space\" or profile and begin chatting. This is effecting their school work, because they aren't spending enough time or giving their all. Along with not spending enough time on work, students are spending time at night online and not sleeping. Without the sleep required by their body, they have a harder time paying attention in class or do not complete work. II- Social networking sites allow sexual predators easy access to persons' information. With over 250,000,000 users on Facebook a vast majority of them are sexual predators. In the year 2007 Facebook deleted 90,000 sexual predator accounts. Those being the ones reported to traced. And since May they have deleted 5,585 accounts. These sexual predators use social networking sites because they are easy access and you can lie easily on them. You don't have to put your actual name, age, or picture. This makes it very convenient to gain trust from somebody and use it against them. III- Social networking sites can harm your computer and cost money. Both Myspace and Facebook (along with others) have disclaimers telling you to beware or odd friend requests and about opening messages from people you don't know. They can harm viruses, and other computer glitches. Unmarked emails can hold trackers that allow the sender to hack your account, take information, or use the information against you. Trackers may also allow that person to follow what you do online, like visit the website of your bank. Which gives them more access to your accounts and passwords. IX- Social networking takes massive amounts of time. Like any hobby, social networking sites need to be maintained. Constantly updating your account, checking to see which friends are online, and seeing what everybody is doing takes a great amount of time. This can cut into time used to do something more productive or beneficial, such as exercising or reading a new book. We need to face the fact that Americans (some) are along the most obese persons. Although this is important (maintaining health), it is not one of my mom important points. X- Social Networking sites allow simple information to be used against you. As talked about on HLN this morning, information you post can be used against you. Simply saying that you are going on vacation can allow others to take advantage of the situation and break into your house. Not only are you losing your possessions, but you will lose money replacing them. I would like to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to reply, I've been working on my boxes for extemp. Good Luck Aff.","Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture Yes, I can agree with you that if we control what we put onto the internet we will minimize our risk of people getting our private information. I will clarify what I meant by third party companies being able to access our information. When signing up for a Microsoft account, the terms and agreements page (the one that nobody ever reads) explains that by creating an account you are allowing Microsoft to give out your information to third party companies. While this might not necessarily be a bad thing it still proves that your information is easily accessible. I know when I go onto the internet 20 hackers are not going to trace my IP address. I was simply trying to make the statement that your information online is easily accessible and we need to be aware and practice internet security. You don't have to always visit third party websites for them to get your information. Sometimes they have already gotten it from another account you signed up for elsewhere. I can also see your point about social media being a tool to use for advice on communication. This may be a true statement however, there are also other better ways to meet people and build confidence in a face to face interaction. There are many church groups, college groups, and even community groups. These are places that you can go and meet like minded people in person and build confidence and get advice on how to communicate. We have so many other options that we are starting to take for granted because of social media. It can poison our society and feed us false information. The news is biased and is full of lies and continues to get worse. Social media can be a great addition to our society. Unfortunately, it is being abused and has become dangerous to our social culture.","This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media I believe that todays society privacy is threatened by online social networks, such as facebook, myspace. Even email, which is not defined as a social network, but does have some simualir purposes; to connect people. Term argreements When you sign up to be a member of a social site, you have to agree to their specific terms of use agreements. Under many terms of use agreements, information posted to the site becomes the property of the site and may be sold to advertisers and marketers without your knowledge or agreement. For example, until recentely facebook had rights to content/imformation on your profile that was posted within the terms of use. Even if you had deleted your profile, they would still have all your content in their databases. Does that make it okay for facebook to stil be trusted? \"we have the choice to add friends, show our face book, myspace pictures and profile.\" Anything you post about yourself can be forwarded to other people, even if you have not included them within your list of friends. Even if you decide to remove content, it will survive in a searchable archive; online posts are, like tattoos, very very hard to remove, and they leave marks .","Social networking sites are beneficial Greetings pro, and I'm glad I have the ability to debate this with you. I'll start off with first evaluating your main point in this rebuttal, then I'll be going over my own points that allow me to negate the resolution. My opponents first (and somewhat only point) is that social networking sites *can* help you gain confidence. Now as this may be true, and as social networking sites have the ability to boost the self esteem of some, this by no means supports the idea that ALL are benefited by these sites. Not only is this true, but it also must be taken into account that this statement is not always true. When looking at social media today, we see instagram filters used to hide what people really look like, overused editing, and teenagers using \"likes\" as a form of acceptance. Not only does this lead to a lack of self-confidence, but it only makes people even more insecure, yet again proving social media is not at all beneficial, but rather detrimental. Now, I'll be moving on to my case, we're I'll be highlighting my own contentions. C1: Social Networking sites create a false reality and sense of importance. Since the beginning of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, users of these social networks have too often posted only their most exciting moments, only post pictures when they are with their friends, etc. This flawed reality we too often create not only hurts these users (by using their amounts of likes to gauge their level of acceptance), but it also hurts the viewers of these posts. When average Joes with ordinary lives (like myself) see posts of only the utmost excitement (out of country, at parties, etc.) it creates the average to believe that their lives are not average, but rather much less than average, because they are not able to post exciting memories and moments on Instagram, like their peers. Going further, according to Cornell University's Steven Strogatz, social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. (1) C2: SN leads to decreases productivity Wired.com posted two studies which demonstrated damage to productivity caused by social networking: Nucleus Research reported that Facebook shaves 1.5% off office productivity while Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. (1) Further, Peter Cohan followed up on the study in a February 2012 piece for Forbes.com, using statistics on Facebook's growth during the interim to calculate that Facebook use within the workplace could lead to a 9.4 percent productivity decrease in companies throughout the U.S., a drop that could collectively cost businesses as much as 1.4 trillion dollars. (2) With social networking leading to a lack of productivity, we see that social networking simply cannot be beneficial in a workplace, and also harms the economy. C3: Cyberbullying Ever heard of the #JadaCounterPose trend that flooded social media? Recent events that have taken place, involving 16-year-old Houston teen Jada, reemphasizes the need for social growth. After being drugged, undressed and raped, while attending a friend's party, Jada dealt with onlookers taunting her with photos, hateful words, and chatter. (3) People have continuously, not sympathized, but rather made fun of Jada, posting mimic photos of her \"counter pose,\" etc. This is what social media spurs. Although extreme, it can't be ignored that lives are ruined every day simply because of the negligence users have on social media. In conclusion, although there may be benefits to social media, the detriments that come along with these sites outweigh the benefits immensely. I look forward to hearing your response. (1) http://smallbusiness.chron.com... (2) http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...","Social networking sites cause more harm than good In response to your point as to how social media can be used for bullying- yes, it's true that bullying online does occur. But I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't bully people anyway, and having the bullying transfer from physical attacks that can actually cause very serious damage to a mere text message is in fact a good thing for society. As well as this, you have to consider the fact that social media does more than just stop bullying being physically damaging- it also is used for good. Friendships can tarnish if you don't see them for extended periods of time, but social media allows people to keep their friendships growing strong. Are you suggesting that ridding society of bullying in a way that can cause permanent damage is a bad thing? Are you suggesting that keeping friendships strong is not worth doing?","That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States I have argued that social networking sites have only created an \"illusion of privacy\". Sites deserve blame for the widespread release of personal information. Why these security settings are so easy to get around is because strict privacy settings inhibit growth. The wider the access to information, the great the commercial value of the site. Also, that hour and 22 minutes a day adds up. While teens are online, they are slowing breaking down their own communication skills. They can bounce around to any social networking site and \"lol\" all they want. While slowly any relationships they have formed in the real world begin to diminish. I noticed in my opponent's speech as she stated the \"schedule\" of a teenager. I failed to see that she mentioned time with friends, or socializing. That one hour and 22 minutes is the only socializing that seems to be getting done. My opponent also brought up that social networking sites are good for businesses. However, according to a security company based in Australia, \"if a single employee spends one hour of company time on Facebook everyday, it will cost his employer $6,200 per year. For Australia, that translate to a productivity lost of $5 billion annually. That impact in the United States would be even greater as Facebook usage in the United States is more widespread. Again, no matter what they claim, security on social networking sites are not as strong as they appear. People, strangers can still get access to your information. Young people of today are destroying social attributes, slowly losing the basis of communication. If an hour of Facebook, can really cause a company to lose that much of it's money, it would have a more negative impact on our already struggling economy. On balance, we are showing more and more of what social networking sites are doing to our community, and it is not in a positive way.","Social networks are beneficial to our society! 'The people I hate keep bugging me !!' Block them.. 'FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc.' The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group. For example, at school we constantly try to impress our classmates in order to vote us for president of the class etc. If somebody cares about being popular he/she wants to be popular in every social group thar he/she participates in. If you're interested in being popular you have to try but you should protect your personality and not lose yourself. This is a basic principal you have to respect during your lifetime not only when you spend your time in a social network but in every social interaction. So, this is not a disadvantage enough important to outweigh social netorks' advantages. 'A FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \"look at me, I did this\" \"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\" etc etc etc' It's not about bragging. SOCIAL networks has this purpose: to create a small society of people who communicate, share their interests, share photos etc. Actually, this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. This is why social networks spread Iinformation faster than any other media. Because soneone can discover something interesting and share it with other people. For instance, someone can be informed about a concert that is taking place or a new TV series that he/she would may find niteresting. ' FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction' This is a problem caused only when we don't use socal media wisely. We should be aware of this danger and protect ourselves. When we use them correctly we have the opposite results. We meet with people that we didn't know and we make new friends, we keep in touch with people who live in other cities or even abroad and since the communication is free and easy we speak more often to people we see everyday. All of these things, improce our social life and as I said in round 2, they facilitate face-to-face interactions. 'I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens' This is not a very serious disadvantage. In fact, this is not about social media. This is about your anticipation to hear from someone. You might feel the same thing when, for example, your phone is ringing and when you answer it you realize that they have called you to advertise a product or ask you to participate in a survey. Another example is when you hear the bell ringing and then, when you open the door you see a stranger who wants to sell you some things. 'I am addicted' This is a very frequent phenomenon, but yet again its cause is not social media but the way you ause them. Since you are aware of this danger, you have to put some limits and avoid spending too much time in front of the computer screen. The fact that you have realized the problem is a very positive sign. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself better: 1) Tell your parents to put a time limit to your computer that will allow you to spend a specific amount of time in front of your screen. 2) ask for help by experts 3) regulate your sleeping pattern (so that you ensure that you won't lose sleeping hours-this is a very frequent symptom of the internet addiction- and you will become more organized and self disciplined* 4) make a list of reasons why you will be happier by using the internet less and remind yourself that you can make it!* As you can see there are many ways to avoid getting addicted or to face the problem of addiction. Of course there are some serious dangers but dangers are everywhere. Social media has to offer too many important benefits for someone to claim that the dangers are enough to make them more harmful than useful. In this case the key is to learn how to get protected and not to stop using them. 'The Labour party have a fakebook page' Don't visit it. 'FACEBOOK is a social network' I suppose that you don't like fb so the solution for you is easy: DON'T MAKE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT Thank you, I'm a genius, I know:P All in all, your arguments are more personal and most of your peoblems can be solved by deleting your account if you have or not making one. Other people don't find them serious or annoying enough to stop using them: As of September 2013, 73% of online adults use social networking sites.** Furthermore, social media do not include only fb. So, if you want to prevent people from inviting you to play games you can sign up another social networking site. Finally, I can't understand something. Firstly, you are against social networks and then you say that you have an account while you find it extremely annoying.. Does not make any sense.. Sources: *http://m.wikihow.com... ** http://www.pewresearch.org...","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Reflecting on my opponent's arguments, I consider my position is untenable and I feel I must concede this debate and duly urge the voters to Pro. Thank you.","That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. It is because I see through the facade of social networking websites straight to the many obvious hazards in the business that I urge a negative ballot on the resolution at hand. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. ============================================================================ Contention I: Social Networking Web sites have little security built into them. ============================================================================ SUBPOINT A- HACKING IS PREVALENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING WEB SITES, AND THIS LEADS TO IDENTITY THEFT Brian Krebs of the Washington Post writes in August of 2008, \"Social Networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, and LinkedIn are fast emergiing as some of the most fertile grounds for malicious software, identity theives and online mischief-makers.\" Think of the ways that these social networking can be used as a focus for identity theft. The majority of the useres post their birth date and other personal information, items commonly asked by banks to determine a person's identity. Combined with the full name and things like pet names, Mother's maiden name, and other such information, it isn't difficult to work out the rest. According to the Department of Justice in October 2006, \"There has been a sharp 34% increase of Social Network users reporting having personal information stolen over the internet in the past year.\" With so many hackers targeting social networking websites every day, these site are part of the problem towards helping Identity theft. SUBPOINT B- IDENTITY THEFT HARMS THE ECONOMY According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a September 2003 report on Identity Theft, \"1 in 30 Americans surveyed reported having a personal account on the Internet taken over. The average los from the misuse of a victim's personal information [was] $4,800.\" The same report explains that this amounts to approimately $48 billion removed from the economy every year. Given the current state of our economy, when money is precious, this 48 billion could not come at a steeper cost. ============================================================================ Contention II: Social networking sites are destroying technological innovation. ============================================================================ While it might seem easy to view the Internet in the abstract, as some ethereal object, the truth is, its not. The internet only exists because of the physical infrastructure provided by private investors. For every byte of information sent on the internet, there exists a physical server that hosts the memory storage for that information. These servers are bought and paid for by a number of actors, the majority of whom are private investment companies. The contention that I bring up is the internet's need for storage capacity is drastically increasing; requiring a drastic increase in the amount of money diverted to purchase infrastructure needs. This is because of social networking websites. SUBPOINT A- THE INTERNET IS REACHING THE LIMITS OF ITS CAPACITY, AND SOCIAL NETWORK WEBSITES ARE CAUSING THIS TO HAPPEN. Without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010. The \"unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic\" would increase 50-fold by 2015. Eight hours of video is loaded onto Youtube every minute. Five hours of video is loaded onto Facebook and Myspace every minute. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today. [The internet] is a finite service upgraded and maintained by private investors: without necessary investment, it will run out of room Websites like Myspace, Facebook and Youtube all suck up precious bandwidth through uploading massive amounts of pictures and video. There are no other places on the Internet that contain the same amounts of massive files, nor engender such uploading by making it easy and socially desireable. The choice for the internet is to crash, or significantly increase investment in physical infrastruture. Obviously, because of the value provided by the internet, investors will not allow it to crash. What that will mean, however, is that they will be forced to bottleneck their precious resources into creating physical memory storage devices to keep pace with the amount of memory storage. Imagine the internet without major contributors such as \"amazon.com\" or ebay. Most people in today's economy spend most of their time on these types of websites just to earn a living. Furthermore, imagine the world without google. Pure chaos. It is because I believe anything that harms both the American People and the American economy so much outweighs any positive aspects of social networks, that I urge a negative ballot today.","Technology is making us anti social I disagree with that statement. Facebook is a huge social media site with tens of millions of users solely for the purpose of being social. Each innovation seems to make our world more and more connected socially. We might converse in different ways through different mediums, but we are more social now than ever. Text messaging, emails, cellphones, live streams, you name it. 50 years ago? Not a chance.","YES ! i think this because, many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook .. etc. and if social networking was apart of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also i feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!","Social Networking Sites are Harmful :D Hope this is going to be fun. ==DEFINITIONS==Well, seeing that the PRO has not defined the topic yet, I will take it into my own hands. I define Social Networking Sites as a website for gregarious humans to find communities and companionship. .. Just to clarify, social networking sites do not include dating websites, such as eharmony. com, match. com, etc, as the websites only support 1 on 1 close relationships, as compared to social which pertains to a gathering or community. I define harmful as causing physical/mental damage, or moral injury, evil, wrong. ==REBUTTALS==Con states \"These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong! \"His argument is based on the premise that children under 14 get on social networking sites. 1) According to Time, Facebook kicks off 20,000 underage users everyday. . http://newsfeed.time.com...2) Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.3)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. ==ARGUMENTS== 1) Large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members, and when you take into consideration that there are plenty of dangerous chat rooms and instant messengers filled with suspicious people, isn't it clear that these social networking sites provide more online safety?2) There exists a balance in privacy between Parents and teenagers, and this is critical as teenagers deserve their own privacy and peace of mind from the micromanagement of some parents, while parents still do hold the right to monitor what their children are doing. Take facebook as an example and its many uses. Private Messages aren't available to outside people, while parents can easily monitor their children and their children's friends' walls to keep track and monitor them. This balance is crucially needed in today's world, as more and more teenagers are becoming social.3) Health. The human mind needs social activity. In fact, in schools nowadays, teachers are teaching students about the three parts to health. This includes your physical health, your mental/emotional health, and finally your social health. Human beings need friends; they need people they can depend on and talk to in times of need. Facebooks helps people socialize and adds an important \"happiness\" factor in their lives. 4)Social networking sites allows friends and family to keep in touch more easily, as they can instantaneously share information about their lives, such as events, photos, videos and more, with their friends and family, even if they are far away. Forgetting your old friends or distant family members is less likely to happen when you see their faces and updates every day on websites such as facebook.5)Self-Determination Groups. Social networking sites have many benefits. One of them allows people with similar beliefs to connect with one another and stand up for a cause. Take Egypt for an example. Recently, when Egypt fought for democracy, self-determination groups used communication methods such as Facebook. With this I bring my arguments to a close. I shall expand and make new ones, if necessary, in future rounds. =====================================================I await Pro's response. :)!","social networks are more harm than good i will start by saying this . have a fair and fun debate. i do believe that social networks help and that in the end of the day: they help!!! they help get jobs and friends","All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. But it is the question about those people who can have access to these sites. These sites provide many facilities to them. Students can make their own groups share educational information with each other. People van also communicate with their relatives, friends, etc., all around the globe. So it's the question about those people who can afford these sites.........","Social networking sites boon. Con has failed to continue this debate and explain as to why social networking is bad. Therefore I have explained in great amount why it is good. Thanks for the debate!","On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Hey guys. I am radicalguy44 and in this debate I will prove that social networking websites do more harm than good. I would like the PRO to start, and please make this an LD style debate! Good luck PRO!","Social networking sites are harmful. I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this. Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free. Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.","social networking is bad Yes it allows us to interact with people but also exposes our personal information. For example, the con side just mentioned that we can share our photos with each other but those photos are seen by other people also and some of those people are criminals or you can just can say bad guys who can use to that photo for a bad purpose. Social networking reveals our personal information.","Social networking sites boon. Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds.","is social networking sites really a boon or bane Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of \"social gaming\". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with \"Killing in the Name\", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.","social networking sites should be banned..!!! Arguments for Social Networking Sites:1. Increased communications with distant relatives.2. Increased communications with friends.3. Entertainment (because who, at some point on Facebook or Myspace, hasn't tried Mafia or Farmville or something?)Refutations to my opponent's sole argument:\"Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.\"1. False. We bring privacy into the public domain. Social networking sites are inherently public, and posting private information is something only we can do. If you don't want your personal information out there, don't put it out there.2. Even if social networking sites are responsible for privacy becoming public, my opponent never establishes why this is a bad thing, but a) merely asserts that it happens, and b) merely asserts that it's a bad thing and cause for banning. He has proved neither.Resolution = Negated","social networking is bad actually social networking is a superb thing. it keeps us in touch with our relatives in foreign and also helps to interact with our friends. it also allows us to share pics of our life and to share the joy!!!!!!!","Social media does more harm than good I believe that social media does more harm than good for our society. It is supposedly makes us more connect; however, I argue that it actually is making us more anti-social.","users under 18 using Facebook Thanks for your response. My opponent cited a study which a Doctor Underwood stated that the activities posted in FB are for everyone to see and therefore a bad thing. Not really, since anyone can edit their privacy settings. Facebook, like other social netwoking sites have upsides and downsides. Users may receive positive or negative feedback from others. But does that mean that we should totally ban them to teens? Again, no. I stated that FB can be used for educational purposes, my opponent refuting that statement by saying we have other references like the library is irrelevant. My opponent believes that FB made people more physically distant and gives people a false sense on getting better socially and makes people more closed minded. Since my no sources and accurate references were cited here and it's a he-says-she-says, let me start by introducing the study of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, where they stated that social networking sites helped 60 million people on major life issues via contacting friends and experts online. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Also, according to the National School Board Association, 59% of students use social networking sites for educational purposes. This highly supersedes my opponent's assumption that teens only use social networking sites for negative stuffs. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Bottomline, my opponent just repeated her argument which I already previously refuted. Again, just because FB may harm its users does not mean we should affect the majority. Sorry for it being short, really busy IRL. No time to write.","Social networking is good for students They have embraced it by the billions! 1.35 billion users are on Facebook. 645,750,000 users are on Twitter and 200 million are on Instagram (Hampton). 72% of all internet users are on social media sites. 90% of 13 to 17 year old have some access to social media (Common Sense Media). And social media is growing dramatically each day. Obviously there is power and benefit to being part of the movement. That is part of the reason why social networking is good for students.","Social Networking Sites are Harmful The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )","Social networking sites cause more harm than good I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org...","Social Networking sites are a boon \"Powerful new technologies provide great benefits, but they also change the way we live, and not always in ways that everyone likes. An example is the spread of air conditioning, which makes us more comfortable, but those who grew up before its invention speak fondly of a time when everyone sat on the front porch and talked to their neighbours rather than going indoors to stay cool and watch TV. The declining cost of information processing and communication represents a powerful new technology, with social networking as the most recent service to be provided at modest cost. Through the course of our surfing on the social web. I would first log you in with a thought, and then straight away hit the notifications and give justify my argument's and towards the end I bang up my words with an error 404 i.e. make this august house believe my points and over shadow my complacent virtual socialites on the other side. But will social networking sites really improve the quality of people's lives? The minuses are that all of this sharing can be dangerous, through gossip and potential abuse of the services. Examples include reported suicides linked to malicious gossip circulated on a social network. Some people become addicted to life on the computer screen, and withdraw from personal contact — it's a long way from people sitting on the porch talking to friends and neighbours... Tabbing onto notifications-- 1st notification - Social networking sites are a major distraction from learning. Psychologist Kirschnera told the Daily Mail that his team studied 219 U.S. university students between ages 19 and 54, and found that Facebook users had a typical grade point average of 3.06, while \"non-users\" had an average GPA of 3.82. The psychologist said the study wasn't about whether Facebook's good or bad, but goes more to the stereotype that younger people are fluid multi-taskers 2nd notification Social networking sites have given rise to online frauds and to paedophilia - children are unknowingly exposed to voyeuristic vultures. As I mentioned earlier, we have become addicts and are just blindly following the herd. There is no more confidentiality or respect for human idiosyncrasies. Playing online games, sharing your private information and photos has become the norm. If you do not participate you are looked as a pariah or an outcast. 3rd notification It is unethical for social network sites to use personal information to enable advertisers to better target you as a consumer. Personal information should not be used for commercial purposes. It is too invasive, and can cause emotional damage. For example, what if your profile indicates that your girlfriend just broke up with you, for example. An ad agency is allowed to obtain this information and use it to send you an advertisement on break-ups. This could do emotional damage. Now moving to facts and figures… The world is seriously obsessed with social networking.. As of 2011 there are 5, 00,000,000 users on Facebook i.e. 1 out of every 13th person in the world. 48/. Of the total users use Facebook right after they wake up! 57/. Of the people talk more online than in their real life. Approximately 2,000 billion notifications all over the social networking world. Now, I let you to ponder ladies and gentlemen will this not bring about disbalance in political, social, economical, so on and so forth aspects of a person's life and the world.","Social networking is good for students With this new medium, have come many new opportunities and new uses. It offers a beneficial place for students to learn about job openings, increase their connection with friends and improves relationships and it helps students learn about society. If students do not know how to use the mediums available now, they will not know how to apply for jobs, or stay connected, or learn about news of the world right at their fingertips.","Social Networking Social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc., is as good as, if not better than, face-to-face interaction and socializing.","Social Networking sites are a boon Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc","That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. As my opponet forfeited his round all my points stand. Go CON.","that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US I'm sorry, these aren't all my arguments. Intro As technology has evolved, mankind has made means of communication more convenient, efficient, and powerful. Thus, we have reached a new era of expressiveness, and that is why I affirm the resolution that, on balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. I will prove to you why social networking sites serve as a superb medium of communication that positively impacts social capital among its users, helps the American business as well as provides jobs. Point One: Social Capital What is a social networking web site? It is a revolutionary web service centered around building online communities for people that share common interests. With it, people can first create their own user profiles, and then create their own virtual community, with as many affiliates as they would like. As we live through life, friends come and go, and sadly, some we may never get a chance to see again. However, with social networking sites, friends can stay in touch no matter how far apart they may be. Since people can share as much information as they like with anyone in their online community anywhere that has internet access, social networking websites increases social capital. It's simple logic, if someone has the ability to share as much information as they like with as many people as they like, more time to talk with Point Two: Jobs Since social networking websites are such a convenient, efficient, and powerful tools, people have come to realize that it can be used for more innovative activities than simply socializing with friends. Since many professionals use social networking websites to help them find jobs, social networking websites benefit the American economy. According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. Point Three: Business According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. thank you and good luck Now to begin, social networking websites are meant to increase communication. When you use a system such as that you are accepting terms of agreement. These terms cover a whole basis of rules and liabilities. I have recently moved a great distance and these sites such as myspace have helped me keep in contact with my old friends and my new ones. Some of these are even a stress reliever for most kids. Kids will come home and go on and talk with there friends for hours and if they had a bad day, this may just help them with that. Also these sites increase creativity, basically by creating your own profile you are making your own PERSONAL site. It could be private or public. Now about privacy. Not everyone can get into your account if you don't want certain people to get in your account then you put it on private. Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends.","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote","Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. \"Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum.\" Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.","social networking is bad Today social networking and internet has become one of the most important part of our life. But is it reakky good for us. I dont think so. According to me social networking has caused many problems in our life. It has harmed a lot than helping us.","On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Alright, thanks radicalguy for posting an interesting topic, and lets get this started! As a sidenote, I am a bit pressed for time these days, so i'm apologizing in advance for the inevitable brevity of my case. I affirm the resolution resolved, \"On balance, social networking websites do more good than harm\" I'll start off with definitions. Social Networking Site: \"A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., who share interests and/or activities. A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services.\" My value for judging 'good' and 'harm' will be utilitarianism, a value which we can both meet common ground with. My criteria will be social connectivity/harmony and the spreading of information, both of which are values intrinsic to the betterment of the human race. Without strong communities, and without common knowledge being spread amongst the people, we never could have achieved he technological and sociological wonders that we cherish today. Contention 1: Social networking strengthens social bonds, leading to a myriad of positive outcomes. Sub Point A: The strengthening of social bonds aids the development of social harmony. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are used as means to build up friendships, have conversations, and compete in small games in a positive atmosphere. This new vehicle of interacting with other people inevitably leads to making better friends and having more people to interact with, allowing people to exchange ideas even when they cannot meet in person. They also make the process of forementioned socialization streamlined and expedient. Sub Point B: These sites allow for international correspondence, leading to international fraternity. Years ago, the standard means of distant communication was by letter. Of course, the obvious flaws were the time involved and the need for a specific address. The advent of the e-mail made messaging instantaneous, but a specific destination was still requisite. With the creation of Facebook and Myspace however, it is possible to link to and find people from all across the globe and communicate in a streamlined manner. Really, all these sites are trying to do is simplify and improve the capability of communication around the globe. The implications are staggering. Bonds of friendship crossing borders, even continents is something our predecessors would not have dared dream of. But it most certainly exists. Also, it provides a medium for communication for distant people who already know each other. For example, I recently moved from MA to CA, and wanted to stay in touch with my network of friends. Would e-mail have been functional? Of course. But Facebook allowed me to stay in touch with friends with unparalleled proximity. In the negatives world, I would have been confined to stiff e-mails instead of Facebook's fluidity. In their world, NO SOCIAL NETWORKING WOULD EXIST. Contention 2: Social Networking Sites Aid in spreading information and current events. Through being updated constantly through the thoughts and musing of others on a live basis, it leads to the assimilatiof knowledge of current events. How I learned about MJ's death? Facebook. Chilean Earthquak? Facebook. Now, while the negative would say that sites like Google News or the New York Times could be used, people go to Facebook much more often just because it has a positive atmosphere. Long have educators attempted to educate the masses while simultaneously entertaining, them, and these sites do just that. They make events which would once have been nerdy to orate about socially relevant and requisite to prosper in the comments section. Sub Point A: Social Networking Sites help spread different opinions and thoughts about an issue, leading to mental diversity. By allowing near instantaneous response and analysis of world events, fresh perspectives and vantage points can be seen, allowing for lively debate and introspection. For example, I have a friend of mine who converted from Christianity to Atheism after a long and philosophical theological discussion. Contention 3: Social Networking Allows and Encourages the creation of grassroots clubs and movements. With the feature of easily being able to find mutual friends and send out messages with intuitive responses, Facebook allows for the expedient creation of clubs and organizations joined together with mutual goals such as spreading political awareness or fund raising. The expediency of recruitment and the ability to organize events and hierarchy are once again improved by social networking. For all these reasons, you must affirm. I am now ready for Cross Ex.","Social networking sites are harmful. Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub","Social networking sites are beneficial Good day, Con, this is the second round, and I hope this debate will turn out very great. Before I state my second and third argument, I will present a rebuttal for your arguments. First of all, I agree with the fact that Social Networking sites are beneficial, but it is also detrimental, since I have seen cyber bullying a lot in these days. But, rethink your first argument. Because of growth of the society and the growth of technology, people likes to post their 'non-exciting moments' too, because they have got time to be in somewhere they can rest. For example, draw a picture in your mind that you're in a nice, cozy cafe. People like to take pictures of themselves resting, and it is very true and real isn't it? They do not use a program to make it all false. Why do they need to when they're just trying to post in a real way? Now I will state my second and third argument. P2: Social Networking sites can be diverse. As I said in the first argument, social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, google+ lets you communicate with millions of people around the globe. Now, as you know, each one of them may have different viewpoints over something. It may be the effect of their religion, culture, environment(etc.). Because of this benefit, we can learn to think about others personalities, understand their viewpoints. For example, It can develop social skills such as understatement of the social economy and skills used in the society. Brendesha M. Tynes, PhD, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois said that \"Online social networking can facilitate identity exploration, provide social cognitive skills such as perspective taking, and fulfill the need for social support, intimacy, and autonomy. Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities -- a primary goal of adolescent development. This requires constant reflection on who they are, on who they want to become, and on their values, strengths, and weaknesses. As teens prepare to enter the adult social world, online social environments provide training wheels, allowing young people to practice interaction with others in the safety of their homes.\" Like this, understanding the viewpoints and the minds of millions of people can only be happened with social medias. You can also learn foreign language in some social medias because of hangouts, or diverse groups of people. P3: Educational benefits of social networking sites The first computer was a big pile of big gears. As the history moves on, everything evolved. The technology has been largely improved over the years, and we have moved on to the 'age of technology'. There are touchable screens, mails that send our message around the globe close to the speed of light, we have nano-sized hardwares and computers and it still moves on. The evolution of technology had a big effect on globalized educations. Unlike the past, teachers and students now can browse infinite amounts of ideas from the internet. The viewpoints are very different, and we learn to look at an object in most ways to understand it better. With technology, people can instantly browse ideas and major documents just in their smartphones. Look at the case of Samsung Galaxy 5 LTE*3. It can instantly download in 0.4 seconds. That is amazing, and think about the way students can browse ideas that fast. It helps students to talk more specifically about their schoolwork. Also, it urges students to try out new technology. In return, they get massive amounts of education skills. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that \"Almost 60 percent of students who use social networking talk about education topics online and, surprisingly, more than 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork... With words, music, photos and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online... Only a minority of students has had any kind of negative experience with social networking in the last three months; even fewer parents report that their children have had a negative experience over a longer, six-month period.\" As you see, there are many benefits according to NSBA. Getting a good school experience lets them to have great jobs. And thats not all. Since it can let people who are owning a large company see your educational record fast, they can soon get interested in you. According to Nicole Ellison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, \"I believe the benefits provided by social network sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as individuals, and that, as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations, we will see an increase in their utility. Anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes from these technologies -- such as political activities organized via Facebook or jobs found through LinkedIn -- is well-known, but now a growing corpus of academic research on social networks sites supports this view as well... Social technologies never have predictable and absolute positive or negative effects, which is why social scientists dread questions like these. In considering the effects of social network sites, it is clear that there are many challenges to work through -- the increasing commercialization of this space, the need to construct strong privacy protections for users, and safety issues -- but I believe the benefits we receive as a society provided by these tools far outweigh the risks.\" In a instant moment, social networking sites leads you to success - in the fastest way possible. I hope you answer my argument, and let this debate be a great experience to ourselves! Links 2,3 :http://socialnetworking.procon.org...","All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.","All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Of course it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our life. It lets you get updated with recent activities of your friends and more importantly recent social affairs. It provides you an option for participating in the social activities and a scope to bring a change in the society.","Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States Social Networking sites are a tricky thing to debate because of the various pros and cons. I decided to take this debate on however. First off, many people are reunited through social networking site. Second, many people find life long companions through dating websites. Third, people can keep in touch with family from all across the world. These are a few of the pros.","Social Networking I'd like to welcome my opponent to the site; to get better acquainted, I figured that I would take this debate challenge, and observe her debating style for myself; not to mention, I wanted to expand my horizons a bit, and talk about something a bit more lighthearted. To clarify one thing: If it wasn't already known, then social networking sites are things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as opposed to dating sites like Match.com, Chemistry.com, etc. To things manageable, I will make only a couple of opening arguments, and I will briefly refute the Con's. I - Social networking is beneficial. Man is, by nature, a social creature; that is, people need people. As technology advances, so does mankind's means of communicating and socializing; for example, we've developed things such as the telegraph/telegram, mail service, telephone/cell phone, video chat, and now, we are looking at social networking sites; thus, we can see that, because social networking has increased the ability of people to communicate and socialize, whether city, state, nation, or even worldwide, social networking sites have clearly had a positive impact on society. II - Social networking sites balance a child's privacy and a parent's right to know. A classic clash always happens when pitting the right to privacy of a child against the right to know of a parent; however, social networking sites find a happy medium, so that neither side is overlooked; for example, on Facebook, a teenager may have private conversations with a friend over the private messaging system, but the parent of this teenager will still be able to keep track of things such as posts made to other friends' walls, pictures posted, etc. Social networking sites give parents the ability to keep tabs on many of their child's online postings, such as pictures and personal information, but without having to directly invade on their child's privacy; this again proves that social networking sites have had a positive effect on society. III - Social networking sites provide a degree of online safety. While all websites and internet users are vulnerable to some degree, the openness and oversight provided by the staff of social networking sites, give or take a few situations, ensures a higher degree of safety than might be found elsewhere on the internet. While these sites don't have to take direct responsibility for their users, there's still a higher sense of security than would be found in unchecked e-mail services, instant messengers, and chat rooms full of shady characters; so, to some extent, social networking sites provide all the benefits of other services, such as IM and e-mail, but without the fear of being stalked by a predator or serial killer [though I can't account for the harmless creepers that tend to accumulate on some sites. :)]. Now, to move on to the Con's sole contention. 1. Social networking is potentially harmful. a. A lot of different things can be potentially harmful; however, simply because something has the potential to be misused does not mean that it has had a negative effect on society; prescription medication, for example, can (and often is) abused by the people to whom it is prescribed; however, this potential for abuse does not mean that we do away with prescription drugs completely, and it is the same with social networking sites. b. In the case with Megan Meier, this girl was already reported to suffer from depression, was on several medications, and since the third grade, had been kept under the careful eye of her psychiatrist [http://en.wikipedia.org...]; as we can see, Megan was already in a fragile condition; as we can see, it was not MySpace that was responsible for Megan's tragic suicide; rather, this unfortunate event can be attributed to Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and the several other people who aided in operating the account and harassing Megan; clearly, MySpace didn't intend for their site to be used in such a way, and this is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Drew, among others, was brought to trial, not the MySpace staff; for example, if someone is shot in a nightclub, nobody holds the nightclub staff responsible for being unaware that the shooting would happen; they hold the shooter responsible, as he is the one that committed the detestable act; in the same way, MySpace cannot be held accountable for the malicious acts of other people, and this instance, while tragic, is not a negative effect of social networking sites, but merely the misuse of them. I will stand down for the moment, and allow my opponent to chew on my opening arguments for a bit. Good luck, Con!","Social Networking Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**","Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good I am here to affirm and convince that \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication. This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!","Social networking sites are beneficial First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly.","That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking is defined as a web-based service that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. There are dozens of great things about social networking, but the main positives are the increase in social capital they provide, the political participation it increases, and the staggering learning potential it offers First, there is Social Capital. Social Capital is an economic idea which refers to connections between individuals and entities. Its economically valuable and it helps people link together and people who trust and assist one another are extremely powerful. the better a company understands their possible consumers, the more social capital. Multiple studies from such universities as Northwestern prove that the more usage a company puts into Social Networking sites, the more social capital they receive. not to mention that social networking is a $15 billion market, from advertising alone. Next, these sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and even debate.org, increase dramatically the statistic of political participation according to major academic studies. our new president, Barack Obama, used social networking tremendously during his campaign and he, obviously, won. his main site was Change.gov, but he also used other large sites as a crowd sourcing tool in order to attract even more of the young people vote. In continuation, social networking sites are not just for teenage socializing, it also contains enormous potential to be a learning cornerstone. in a study performed by the University of Minnesota, the social networking sites were helping students learn 21st century skills such as developing a positive attitude towards technology, editing and customizing content, learning online design, practicing safe and responsible use of info, and sharing creative original work. this show the Internet's overall enormous potential. Thank you, and please affirm this resolution.","Social networking sites boon. In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that \"Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds\" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.","debate with yourself Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children\"s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.","Social networks are beneficial to our society! I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.","Social networking sites are good for our society! Social networking sites are good for our society!"],"string":"[\n \"social networking sites should be banned..!!! Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.\",\n \"social media good for young children I cannot agree with you more in the sense that it must be used appropriately but I do not believe that the benefits of Social Media in any way shape or form can outweigh the negatives aspects and dangers it Poses to children. The internet is a terrible place, filled with terrible people, when you allow children to access social media you are allowing children to be let into the same world as pedophiles and child predators. This is putting children in so much danger. Child pornography is already a major issue in today's society. As the topic of the debate implies, it will be YOUNG children that you propose will be using social media. Young children are not aware of the threats and risks of being online, they are the MOST vulnerable targets for these predators. Without proper education - We may be putting our Children in an enormous amount of danger by letting them online.\",\n \"Facebook encourages socialisation One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems. Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1) Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2) (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012 http://www.jcr-admin.org/files/pressPDFs/112712180022_Stephen_Article.pdf (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212001409\",\n \"Social Media Time restrictions for 18 and under No,this is not violation of our constitutional rights. Yes,social media is a form of a free speech and it is a good platform of those speaker who really wanted to put their own thoughts in front of all people .In today's days our young generation spend their crucial time on social media like chatting with their friends for long hours. In today's days online crime is spreading over internet and many young people is trapped in their web's.According to doctors while sitting for long hours in front of computers without taking break causes a many health problems like computer vision syndrome , sleep disorders, obesity & stress disorders . by this new bill which has been proposed in congress our young generation will be safe .they will not able to use social media for long hours .So they can utilize their crucial time by studying and spent their time with family also . and they can play outdoor games which is beneficial for their health . In other word we can say that it will be benefited for our society because young generation is our coming future of our nation and society . Lastly I would say that this bill is beneficial for young generation along with our society and nation.\",\n \"Screens make us feel more isolated than we really are. My opponent has forfeited and therefore not fulfilled his BoP He also doesn't take into account that social networking sites, Such as Facebook, Twitter, Viber, and Skype, as well as DDO, grants us the opportunity to interact with family and friends from all over the world, at any given moment. I hope Pro makes an argument in the third round.\",\n \"social media is bad You can\\\"t swing an iPhone without hitting a dozen studies about how social media is making us depressed, killing our relationships and depriving us of sleep. But it\\\"s not ALL bad news. Sure, there\\\"s no doubt that researchers have found some significant downsides to thinking in 140-character quips and holding a little rectangle a foot from our faces for 90 percent of our waking hours. But there\\\"s more to social media than an endless parade of Instagram-induced FOMO. And when it comes to health and happiness, some of the negative impacts of social media are actually balanced out by some awesome benefits. Check them out below\\\"and don\\\"t forget to share this article, obviously: Social media helps the elderly feel less isolated. Ever feel alone in the middle of a crowded Facebook thread? For many of us, social media can sometimes make us feel lonely and isolated. But for the elderly, a Facebook account can have the opposite effect. A UK project looked at the impact that having a computer would have on a group of participants aged 60-95 years old\\\"and the effects were fantastic. Those trained on using a computer experienced heightened feelings of self-competence, participated more in social activity, had improved cognitive capacity and showed a better sense of personal identity. \\\"People who are socially isolated or who experience loneliness are more vulnerable to disease and decline,\\\" explained Dr. Thomas Morton, the project lead. \\\"For these reasons finding ways to support people\\\"s social connections is a really important goal. This study shows how technology can be a useful tool for enabling social connections, and that supporting older people in our community to use technology effectively can have important benefits for their health and well-being.\\\"\",\n \"Social networking sites are harmful. I would like to point out that my opponent has said that social networking sites allow people at 10+, that is a lie sites have restricted people to be at least 13 to be allowed onto these sites and that is because 10 year olds wouldn't know what to do if strangers tried to be friends with them or if they became cyber-stalked and that is because they wouldn't be responsible or mature enough to know what to do in that situation. You also said that people do get harmed form cyber bullying so your saying that everyone that gets bullied on the Internet goes how do I put it crazy? you are just putting it out there that you wouldn't be ashamed to say that someone has gone crazy to many people. harmful shouldn't really be the word used to define social networking sites but then again no word would really suit. When you are on social networking sites you can do many things that are good like talk to friends and family without a problem, or share photos from another country. facebook or titer can be used to say in touch with people all around the world for free or you could just call them for say $1 per minute if they're on the other side of the world, then again it would be nice hearing their voice but they'll hear yours when you get the phone bill, but meh that doesn't matter you could just go on facebook and talk to them. That would be so much easier, guess what else it is.... easy to use for all those technology challenged people simple like a wave of a wand or a swish of the wrist.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Unless my opponent has any objections, the parameters for this debate will be as follows: 1. \\\"Social networking websites\\\" are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. 2. \\\"The United States\\\" will not be contrained merely to a body of government or a geographical region, but to society, businesses, people, etc. One last note: I would urge the consideration of anecdotal accounts to be considered in a logical rather than emotional fashion. Social networking is a thing of the future, a revolutionary concept that will transform the current world. Social networking has evolved from not only a place to meet your friends and mingle, but to a place where businesses are run, deals are made, and contracts are completed. In addition, the networks enhance communication and encourage people from different parts of the world to converse and interact. Also, the network has its educational benefits as well. Students who use social networking learn important skills to help them survive in the 21st century such as managing websites, editing videos, making use of other technological skills. The use of social networking tools as part of everyday working life has led to an increase in efficiency in the workplace. According to Dynamic Markets, Of those employees using social networking tools in the workplace, 65% say that it has made them and/or their colleagues more efficient. And 45% say that it has sparked ideas and creativity for them personally. Businesses use SNS for collaboration sites on intranets, internal forums within the company, company-produced video material shared on intranets, online social networks like LinkedIn and external collaboration sites on the Web and internal blogging sites. Benefits include increasing an individual's knowledge; giving access to products to problems; harnessing the collective knowledge of employees, customers and suppliers; stimulating team building; and better internal collaboration. In addition, businesses like Best Buy who use social networking increase their employee retention rates by making employees feel like they belong. There are far-reaching educational benefits of social networking. Christine Greenhow, researcher at the University of Minnesota, explains that \\\"[S]tudents using social networking sites are actually practicing the kinds of 21st century skills we want them to develop to be successful today.\\\" Also, according to a study conducted by Childnet International, teachers and students alike could set-up online \\\"study groups\\\" and students can use them to collaborate together on group projects and assignments. Social networking helps to encourage student engagement and increase participation, encourages online discussion amongst students outside of school, and provides students with a sense of ownership and engagement which often leads to an improved quality of work. Furthermore, Social Networking sites may increase an individual's self-confidence. As BusinessWeek says, \\\"When people are bullied they often don't feel confident about speaking to people face to face about what is going on - whereas doing it online is quite easy.\\\" Social networking Web sites can help shy people come out of their shells by teaching them how to interact with others in a safe, online environment. Social Networking has substantial benefits that greatly outweigh and hindrances there might be. Because of this, I ask you to AFFIRM the resolution.\",\n \"social media is a boon I believe, that in some ways, social media is a boon. Whilst I see your point that social media does a lot of harm, I also believe that it does a little more good. These are the 4 main points for my argument: 1. Social media helps people stay interconnected with one another and allows them to talk to each other from long distances away. 2. Social media, for educational purposes, can allow students to chat with each other and make forums to help each other with their educational pursuits. 3. Social media is a good way for people to post what is on their mind and just, vent. When people are having a bad day, nowadays, they take to social media to share it with somebody. People were made to talk to others about their feelings, not to hold them in. 4. People are social beings, and social media gives people another way to socialise with one another in an easy and relatively reliable way.\",\n \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good My position should be obvious. I am here to negate the resolution, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that social networking does not cause more harm than good.My opponent may begin their argument.\",\n \"Is social media cause more harm than good I didn't say there is no positive effect that comes from social media.But there aren't so many good thing that comes from social media and sometimes bad outweighs good.Ofcourse social media make us wider connection but it also cause danger to society,Many criminal has use social media as a searching tool for victims,and the sad fact is the most of the target victims are young people especially kids.Many crime occur in social media.\",\n \"Social networking sites are beneficial Thanks for judging :)\",\n \"Social networks are beneficial to our society! I understand Pro feels strongly about this issue.I have a facepage account myself and I can tell you that they are not beneficial. For example:i) I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens ii) The people I hate keep bugging me !!iii) I am addictediv) Some nutters get to go on them.v) The Labour party have a fakebook page.VI) FACEBOOK is a social networkVII) FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction [1].VIII) FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \\\"look at me, I did this\\\" \\\"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\\\" etc etc etc [2]IX) FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc. The problem comes when we wear this mask so much that we lose who we really are [3]. Then people only know us for the mask, and to not surprise them, we continue it.End of argument.Source[1] (The first video)[2] ibid[3] ibid\",\n \"Social networking sites are beneficial Thanks again, Dicsync for debating this with me, and thanks judges for viewing and critiquing this debate. I'll start right off by further depending my points, and answering my opponents rebuttal. 1st: My opponent agrees cyberbullying is a real problem, and has to be addressed, yet still continues to argue that social media is beneficial. Interesting. 2nd: Regardless of the \\\"excitement\\\" of moments on a persons Facebook, it's the idea that these people tend to hype up their own experiences to yet again value \\\"likes\\\" as acceptance. Also, no basis has been provided that allow you to say \\\"society is growing\\\" and no proof what people like to take pictures of. Regardless of this, it's not about the excitement of posts, but more about the experiences. I believe I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood, when i said \\\"excitement,\\\" as I only meant that people would post about their favorite moments, to brag in a way, whether it be at Disneyland, the White House, or simply in a \\\"nice, cozy cafe.\\\" The scenario doesn't change in this situation, as different people like different things. However, it is widely known that people will post pictures/posts simply to impress their audience, and reach this satisfaction. Now I'll be refuting my opponents 2nd and 3rd points. REBUTTAL P2: \\\"Social Networking sites *CAN* be diverse.* My opponent uses social media as a simple road to communication, whether it be to meet strangers, learn about others, or simply talk to friends. As this may be good, I ask the judges, is this \\\"social\\\" interaction as valuable as face-to-face correspondence? My opponent uses social media as not a way to simplify meeting others, but rather a way to hide behind a screen, while attempting to be what we define as \\\"social.\\\" Now I understand, there are situations in which social media may be good. But the fact of this rebuttal, combined with previous points, and the educational detriments that come with this (which I'll be covering next paragraph), any benefit that sprouts from social media falls when combined to it's numerous detriments. REBUTTAL P3: \\\"Educational benefits of social networking sites\\\" Winston Churchhill once said: \\\"However beautiful the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results.\\\" My opponent may try to paint a pretty picture in your head of how beneficial the fast download speed of a smartphone really is in a classroom, but let's think logically and practically about this. As a high schooler, I can confirm that social media is rarely EVER used for educational purposes. The 60% of educational posts most likely sprout from insults to teachers/subjects or even asking for help from others (which would be cheating, another possible problem with social media- but we won't go into that). This percentage is not only ambiguous, but could be inherently flawed. Lastly- all this^ rebuttal was to the intent of that contention, however my opponent did not evaluate \\\"social media\\\" during this contention, but rather technology and smartphones, which are not related. Let me add before I move on: \\\"Connolly cautions that students who use social networking tools might pay significant hidden cognitive costs. Facebook, Google, and other web services simultaneously seize and fragment our attention. They can subvert higher-order reasoning processes, including the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence necessary for critical thinking and intellectual development. Some researchers have correlated heavy Internet use with greater impulsivity, less patience, less tenacity, and weaker critical thinking skills. The need to rapidly shift from object to object online can weaken students\\\" ability to control their attention. Prolonged Internet use exposes students to interactive, repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure and function.\\\"(1) Remaining argument: My opponent makes the following link: social media > great job. Not only is there no substantial studies or evidence to support this, but it is inherently false, when looking at source (1). My opponent uses professors to support his evidence, using their opinion, and what they \\\"believe.\\\" As opinions are great and beliefs are beneficial, no opinion can overcome the substantial evidence of detriments provided in source (1). For all these reasons- vote con. Thank you. (1) http://www.wcer.wisc.edu...\",\n \"Is social media cause more harm than good The mistakes of the minority should not impact the majority. When used correctly, many of the problems don't occur. Facebook and countless other social media websites have plenty of security features which are able to prevent such crimes from happening. This is also why there are age restrictions (usually 13+) on most of these websites to ensure that the users are mostly competent enough to ensure there own safety (or at least their parents/guardians are). For the bad to outweigh the good, I would think that a large percentage of people would have had to have been affected by such attacks/such crimes, lets say 1/3+ of active users. For Facebook that would mean that 470,000,000 out of the 1.44 billion monthly active users would have to have been affected to safely say that social media sites cause more bad than good, which is not the case.\",\n \"Social media does more harm than good Thank you! In conclusion social media does NOT do more harm than good, here's why: Reason #1 it helps prompte young and small businesses. Reason #2 social media allows people to connect to people from far away and also start new relationships. Reason #3 social media can be a stepping stone to advance ones career and find like-minded individuals. Social media doesn't spread misinformation anymore than misinformation was spread 100 years ago. People who are not curious and open minded will believe what they want regardless of what they are told. If someone says something, or you see someone post information you believe is wrong then look it up. You'll get better at researching over time and help further prevent the spread of misinformation. Just don't be afraid to make mistakes! People are also just as antisocial today as they were in the past. People that are antisocial are that way because it's a part of who they are, nothing wrong with it. Social media has not changed these people or harmed them. Emily, would you accept a friend request if I sent one?\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Also, the links my opponent posted lead only to the homepage of their respective sites, I would appreciate it if she would repost the correct ones next round. \\\"Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. \\\" First of all, this claim is not backed by a statistic. Similar to one of my opponent's contentions in Round 1, in order for us to weigh this impact, we need to have a sense of the relative impact that this is having. Without these statistics, we are forced to judge from an uncertain viewpoint. In addition, these \\\"effects\\\" that social networking sites have are not unique. They can be replicated with phones, IM, chat rooms, fax, email, etc. The exchange of communication that my opponent describes could just as easily have been done with any of the aforementioned methods, rendering this actual impact little-to-none. \\\"Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. \\\" Based on their searches? In context, it would be more apparent what this means, but due to the bad link I'll assume that you are referring to advertisers digging into the personal files of a record, ignoring the user's privacy, in order to attempt to further their business. In actuality, these advertisements are not very effective. According to adweek. com, just 57% of social networking users report clicking on an ad over the past year. In comparison, 79% of all web users report clicking on an ad. Also, adweek. com shows that the online ads on social networks pulled in only 11 percent of users for purchases (as opposed to 23 percent for the web overall). Also, users \\\"who frequents a site for 150 pageviews per session several times per week will get accustomed to the ads, layout, etc… and ignore them (adotas. com). \\\" \\\"In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. \\\" To understand the fallacy of this argument, it is important to know to difference between causation and correlation. Simply put, causation is when there is an action that has an effect of something else, while correlation is an action which is followed by an event/action/whatever. When correlated, the first thing does not necessarily cause the other; the event following the first may just be a coincidence. In context, this means that Barack Obama winning the younger vote does not directly result from social network usage. It could very well be from the age difference between Obama and McCain, or from a completely different cause such as heavier advertising on teen-frequented channels on TV. Also, when evaluating the impact of this, one must also consider that an extra method for a politician to campaign that is useful once every four years does not have a large impact in the grand scheme of things. \\\"- The first amendment to the constitution states: \\\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. \\\" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. \\\" The legality of social networking sites is of no relevance in this debate. \\\"-If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. \\\" There is the same lack of statistics in this contention as well. Without any statistics (like how many lives were changed? how much expansion of one's social horizon is there? ) we cannot validly consider this argument. \\\"Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. \\\" The popularity of social networking websites also has no relevance in this discussion. To support my own contentions. .. My opponent seems to have one thematic problem with my points - that social networking sites aren't at fault, but that the users are at fault. However, it is actually irrelevant whose fault it is. The resolution calls for the impact of the existence of these sites. The fact is, if these sites did not exist, all of these detriments would not exist. Whether or not users have been using the sites as intended is not important; what is important is what is happening. 1. \\\"However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government. )\\\" The reality is that they are not being used correctly, and are not having a positive impact. 2. \\\"- As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. \\\" It may not be used in the right context, but the fact is that it is still used, and it is still having ahuge impact. Here is the source - . http://www.cnn.com... The idea of that statistic is to get a general idea for how much business time is wasted. 3. \\\"-Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [. http://signups.myspace.com......] \\\" Even though they may not be for kids, the reality is that kids *are* going on such sites and *are* being negatively impacted 4. \\\"My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK\\\" \\\"My opponent has given no source to support this scenario\\\" . http://www.isafe.org... . http://safety.lovetoknow.com... I am confused as to specifically which scenario as I mentioned a few. Here is the Megan Meier source: . http://abcnews.go.com... 5. \\\"My opponent said, \\\"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. \\\" This is the fault of the individual and not the site. \\\" Again the sites are impacting the users, no matter whose fault it is. In summation, I urge a Con ballet because my opponent has not provided any substantive rebuttals to my contentions a\",\n \"social media I understand how people may misuse social media, but that should not be an argument against its good use. If it is used correctly, sites like facebook and twitter can be helpful to people with very little danger. Also, social media can help people in dangerous situations by connecting many people to work together. (Such as Amber Alerts). The Boston police even used twitter to keep others informed of the dangers of the bombings to keep others safe.\",\n \"Social networking is good for students Social networking is good for students because it helps kids do better in school. Half of all \\\"students use social networking to discuss homework assignments\\\" (National School Board Association). According to Georgia Middle School in Portland, Oregon, \\\"grades went up by 50% after students joined a social networking site\\\" (Kessler). 59% of students talk about educational topics online (National School Board Association). Because social media exists, students are \\\"learning practical skills that are necessary for success in today\\\"s wired world,\\\" (Huffington). Some people may think social media users have lower grades however, that is only shown as accurate if they are heavy users. Responsible users increase their awareness of news and important events. And as much as it helps in school, it also can help personal relationships. Social networking is good for students because it improves relationships and help students make new friends. Research shows that 70% of adults use social networking to stay connected to friends and family (Solis). Social media can help students \\\"make friends by allowing them to gain familiarity with others and build friendships online\\\" (Huffington). According to a study in 2011, a little less than half of the average Facebook users\\\" friends consist of friends from high school or college (Hampton). Even though some people think that they can lose friends because of social media, \\\"half (52%) of all teen social media users say using such media has mainly helped their relationships with friends, compared to just 4% who say social media use has mainly hurt their relationships. Similarly, more than a third (37%) say social media use has mainly helped their relationships with family members, compared to 2% who say it has mainly hurt them. In addition, a majority of teens say social media help them keep in touch with friends they can\\\"t see regularly (88%), get to know other students at their school better (69%), and connect with new people who share a common interest (57%)\\\" (Common Sense Media). More people use social media sites to stay in contact with friends. It is apparent that social media is beneficial in school and in personal relationships. But there are even other benefits for society. Social media is important because it created a socialistic change. Never before have people been connected in this way. It has caused all ages of people to want to get engaged in the medium. To this day, students are becoming experienced with technology \\\"developing their creative ability, appreciating new and different perspectives and enhancing their communication skills\\\" (Huffington). Because there are so many social media users, people have had to re-learn how to communicate with each other. However, some people think social networking is \\\"ruining the world.\\\" People believe that everyone spends less time in face-to-face conversations when there are social media sites where people can interact. However, there are also sites where people can meet new people or reconnect with people. Certainly there are other reasons why people think social media is ruining the world such as cyberbullying and decaying writing skills. Cyberbullying is very serious but if students don\\\"t put themselves in danger or if they tell a trusted adult what was happening, those issues would be less of a problem. Writing skills have changed dramatically because of some of the communication shortcuts encouraged by social media. Students may write \\\"u\\\" instead of actually spelling out the word \\\"you\\\" on school papers. But research shows that social media is actually helping the world and economy. People use social media to find jobs. New media such as Linked In show that 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through this site (HR Focus). Social media sites have also been shown to empower women and help them find jobs. That translates to high school students as well, who learn about job openings and opportunities through Linked In and other sites. It provides a new opportunity for students to learn about job openings.\",\n \"Facebook has a negative impact on learning On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making. If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence. Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1) (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011 http://allfacebook.com/is-facebook-good-or-bad-for-students-debate-roils-on_b41357\",\n \"Expression Through Social Media (good/bad) Your point 'rather the fault of the user', but what does that mean. Social networking has changed the people. It encourages people to be more open about themselves and let go of all their information. Speaking of privacy and your other point 'used the way the user wants it to be used', it is ridiculous. More than 95% of the people who use social media don't read the terms and services for more than 10 seconds. The website is free to do whatever it wants with its users and their private information can be leaked to the website's sponsors.\",\n \"Social media relates school to life. School is supposed to prepare children for life and yet it is completely disconnected from it. This is necessary to a certain extent so that pupils are safe and can concentrate on their work but it is taken to the extreme. Pupils are hardly allowed to socialise and frequently can't even discuss work with each other during lessons. Social media sites are a good bridge between school and the outside world because you can still focus the class on useful learning activities such as finding the latest news and reactions to it, or submitting work to be reviewed by a wider audience.\",\n \"Banning social net. sites at school I agree, that banning social networking sites will NOT make common playground problems go away (bullying, suicide, etc.). In fact, as a high school student myself, I've never even seen hard core cyber bullying. The only reason I agree with the banning of social net. sites at school is because students don't get any school work done if they have access to sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. I have been a victim of internet distractions myself, and although my school has not voiced any more complaints about these sites, I can see a YouTube ban in the near future.\",\n \"does social media effect society in a good way I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for challenging me to debate this interesting topic and I duly accept his parameters for the arguments. As my opponent pointed out, there are some limited benefits that may accrue from social networking sites and I certainly agree that under the supervision of a teacher, forums can be set up within which students from geographically remote locations can exchange ideas and knowledge. What is more difficult to accept is that employees accessing these sites for personal use during working hours makes them more efficient. Would an employee who spends their time chatting on the phone to their friends instead of getting on with their work be considered more efficient? I doubt it. That is why many companies limit the use of both phones and computers for non-business reasons. http://www.net-security.org... http://mashable.com... I must also disagree with the Businessweek journalist's assertion that these sites help shy people to increase their self-confidence within a safe environment. The best way to increase one's self-confidence is to go out and actually meet real people and talk to them in person. In addition, getting out and about is much healthier than sitting indoors in front of a computer screen! As regards security, social networking sites are much favoured by paedophiles who use them to \\\"groom\\\" their victims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Shall we consider Debate.org, for example? It can act as a quasi-social networking site through its forums. This site is, I hope, safe from sexual predators as it is very well moderated in that respect. However, there are no age restrictions and many members are younger than 18 years old – although I'm not. As it happens, on my user profile I quote my real name and age and display a recent photograph of myself, but there is nothing to stop a sex pest from setting up an account and lying about his age and name and using a photograph of someone much younger than himself in the hope of luring one of the younger and more impressionable members into a face-to-face meeting. It would be hard to do on this site, but Facebook and MySpace provide ample opportunities for computer-literate kiddy-fiddlers. So, although these sites do have some positives and access to them certainly shouldn't be restricted (except, perhaps, in some workplaces) on balance, social networking sites do not have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you.\",\n \"Facebook: A Boon For the Society Dear Readers, Today I stand for the topic \\\"Facebook: A Boon For the Society\\\". Before to jump to the main body, I would like to make some clarifications: * Facebook: Facebook is a social networking website that was originally designed for college students, but is now open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Facebook users can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Friends can browse the profiles of other friends and write messages on their pages. * Society: A group of individuals living as members of a community. Reasons for Classifying Facebook as A Boon For The Society: 1. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LEARN, EXPLORE AND DISCOVER THE WORLD AROUND THEM. Facebook allows people to discover the world present around them. In this rat-race, where people compete each other for money and status; making new friends and discovering new possibilities of relationship is almost impossible (I used the term almost). Facebook provides a quick solution to this problem. It allows people to contact each other from any place- home, houses, schools and others private/public places. 2. ALLOWS VIDEO CONFERENCING: THE NEXT GENERATION INTERVIEWS. Video Conferencing is a feature of Facebook, which allows people from any corner of the world communicate with each other. This communication when is supplemented by voice and video, is termed as Video Conferencing. *** DUE TO SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING MY TIME MANAGEMENT; I END MY ARGUMENT HERE TODAY. BUT I PROMISE TO COME BACK WITH MORE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. *** Sources: http://www.techterms.com...\",\n \"Social Media is bad Thanks for being my opponent on our first debate Luca. There are many reasons why social media is good for people and not bad. I would like to start off with this quote, \\\"Smart phones and social media expand our universe. We can connect with others or collect information easier and faster than ever.\\\" -Daniel Goleman. With social media we are able to see what every person on this world (that have some type of social media of course) is up to with their lives. Your able to talk to friends/family that live far away, doesn't that amaze you? I look forward to seeing your response.\",\n \"Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture It's fair to say that Social Media does have a few things bad here and there, but it's not the worst thing in the world. In my opinion, it has to be used in a good way. If humans learn to not abuse the system, it will be fair to use. Social Media is somewhere were people have a bad time, they can go anonymous and enjoy themselves. If you have a bad day at school, spending some time online will give you back your confidence and refill your energy- just like you how you refill a car. It's also something you can use when there's nothing else to do. Heck- I'm debating right now because the next best thing I can do is stare the wall of my room. Yes, interacting face-to-face is a better way to make friends, but don't you already talk to everyone every day at school? I can see from your view, that it's been abused by humans for generations, but there will be something a moral lesson taught one day that Social Media isn't everything in life.\",\n \"Social Media Although the basic use of social media is imperative to our society, abuse is also apart of the here and now. You say that social media allows us to interact with others we may not be able to see everyday, but it also allows people we don't even know to obtain information about our personal lives. The social networking website, Facebook, is a great way to keep updated on the lives of family and friends who may not be near by, but if you do not set your privacy settings anybody who has a Facebook account can access your information, family photos, your location at the time you posted a status. It is amazing in keeping connected, but is it really worth the risk of letting a stranger know everything about you and your family?\",\n \"social networks are more harm than good People have come to treat social networks as a new means for communicating with others. When we contact others via Twitter, Facebook or any other site, we expect that we’ll hear back from those people or companies just as we do when we send an email or leave a voicemail. The problem is that many people and companies don’t. I see it all the time in my personal use of these networks. You get bad service or need to get in touch with a person/company and find them on a social network. You then contact them and wait to hear back — often you never get a response. In other cases, you may hear back days or weeks later. These folks did their part and set up accounts to promote their business, but in being unresponsive, they just did themselves a great deal of harm. If you’ve got a profile, people will expect that you are going to be responsive on that network.\",\n \"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States\\\" I reserve the right top clarify 1st Round (Evidence and the case) 2nd Round Rebuttal 1. Social Networking web sites Definition www. techlearning. com/story/showArticle. php this is where people develop networks of friends and associates. It forges and creates links between different people. 2. impact- strong effect: the powerful or dramatic effect that something or somebody has . http://encarta.msn.com... An impact could be direct or indirect List of Positive impacts 1. Economy . http://www.usatoday.com... Social Networks are boosting economy through helping businesses advertise. Social networks account for billions of dollars 2. Democracy Social networking web sites help people exchange ideas and ultimately spread their beliefs and in result the democratic beliefs are the ones being spread to places like China. Therefore social networking websites are key to increasing number of democracies Social networking websites also help people organize and politically participate this leads to increased participation in US democracy, past 2-3 election prove 3. Terrorism and wars 1. A better economy is key to battle terrorism . http://www.linktv.org... \\\"(U. S. ) Amin remembers that eight years ago we had a budget surplus-- and now our deficit is huge. If we can solve the economic problem, other problems will diminish. \\\" 2. A strong democracy is key to solve war and terrorism . http://www.foxnews.com... Democracy is the answer (to terrorism). We will solve all the problems. We have a situation. We have issues. We've got problems. But we will solve them and we will rise to the occasion. And, democracies don't go to war with other democracies, so if the number of democracies increases the number of likely incidents around the world decreases.\",\n \"Social networking sites are harmful. As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +! It is disgraceful! Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'\",\n \"Social Networking Sites are Harmful I am for this! These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong!\",\n \"Social networking is good for students Social Networking, I believe, can prove to be a distraction to low-performance students. I understand that SN can be used for productive purposes such as group projects and class communication, but it can also be abused and overused. With the growing digital society today, our current generation of students is highly susceptible to its ever-growing influence. Almost anyone in the urban or sub-urban setting in any population dense area has Internet connection and devices that could make use of such i.e. smartphones, PCs, and laptops. Any student has access to this and can be quite handy research materials(Let's not forget Wikipedia and Google) but can also be a way for the student to deviate from his studies. Of course, not all students are the same. There are those who manage their time and know when and when not to use SN without sacrificing precious study time or any time that involves his education for that matter. But we must also consider the ones whose performance is below average. Sure, SN will certainly help him with communicating with his classmates but this will only come to a productive result if he discusses matters involving projects or anything involving his current education. We must consider that low grade students or any other student can abuse SN. They can talk about mundane matters for hours, concerning their lives and their problems. Not minutes, hours. And one more serious matter: Cyberbullying. SN has become the leading medium for Cyberbullying and we all know that bullying has serious effects over the life of a student, especially those who cannot stand up for themselves. The communication brought about by SN is very quick and so will the negative messages come at the same pace. And not only will these messages come almost instantaneously, it can be published to his fellow peers wherein he will be subject to public humiliation both in cyberspace and in the classroom environment. I say that SN should be given time by the student if he is already finished with the work that he has for the day. SN can both amplify and destroy a student's image in his class. Teamwork and peer connection is a crucial element in a student's life. SN must be used moderately.\",\n \"Social networking has a negative impact on communities. Social networking has a negative impact on communities. It increases cyberbullying, suicide and obesity.\",\n \"Social media does more harm than good I wouldn't go to the extreme in saying that the world would be a better place if smart phones and social media didn't exist at all. I do agree that there are plenty of benefits to social media; however, I am stating that it is doing society more harm than good. You talk about how newspapers caused a disconnection between people before. But that doesn't mean that social media makes it anymore better. It's the concept that two wrongs don't make it right. You talk about people being extroverted vs introverted. Sure people can have welcoming faces and you can tell a lot how approachable someone is by body language and facial expressions. However, I argue that it is harder to tell if someone is approachable when their face is glued to their phone. When you mention that if you want more social interactions give them the feeling you are willing to engage in conversation, I believe that means that people have to be willing to put down their pieces of technology and engage in the real world. Congratulations with you and your significant other! You two were able to use social media as an aid as a form of communications you were able engage. But often times, social media becomes the only form of communication for a lot of relationships. I argue that these types of relationships are not genuine. It is hard to distinguish whether these relationships that are soley in the social media realm are meaningful. I think it does take the ability to have interactions beyond just social media in order for a relationship to be genuine between two people. I have enjoyed arguing with you and you have brought up some valid points. I think depending on ones point of view that there are unlimited pros and cons for social media. After this debate, I don't think that social media should be removed completely but it should be redefined on how its used. I think because it is making our society more antisocial in the real world and more social in the cyber community, we need to be less engrossed in it. I think we should use it as a tool to encourage more face to face interactions. Your example of how you met your significant other is a great example of it being used as tool. The issue is that our society doesn't use social media for just that and I think that is why social media is doing us more harm than good.\",\n \"Social Networking Good Morning, and thank you for welcoming me. To begin the second round of our debate, I will first demolish my opponents case, then move on to my own. I- My opponents first conjunction what that Social Networking Web Sites are beneficial to Americans. I do agree with my opponent that people need people. But long before we had social networking sites we had other ways of communicating. We picked up a phone, or wrote an actual letter. Have Americans become so lazy that they can't do this? II- The second conjunction of my opponent's case was that social networking is a balance between child's privacy and the parents right to know. Every parent wants to think that their child is smart enough to know what to post and do online. Unless you plan to sit with your child every time they use the computer, and watch their every move you can't insure they are doing exactly what they say. Another fact is that, if you don't allow your child access to the internet at home, they may be getting online and using social networking sites at friends' houses. --As my opponent brought up, a child can receive private messages online from anyone. On facebook and/or myspace, you don't have to have a person as a friend to send them messages. III- My opponents last point is that social networking provide a degree of online safety. As many people seem to forget, social networking sites allow you to search any name, place, or group. It is a lot easier for you to search a random name, or look for a person in your area on a social networking site because they give you results. As for IM, you have to know a persons complete address to add them. You can't just type in a name and get their email. So social networking sites allow easier access to persons information. While we are talking about gaining persons information, social networking sites have many categories that you fill out, along with name (first and last), age, and where you live/hometown. This allows shady characters to find you, and follow you. And they could potentially steal information about you. Now to move on to my case. I- Social Networking Sites effect children's education. With more and more social networking sites being created, children are using them more. When children get home one of the first things they do is log into their \\\"space\\\" or profile and begin chatting. This is effecting their school work, because they aren't spending enough time or giving their all. Along with not spending enough time on work, students are spending time at night online and not sleeping. Without the sleep required by their body, they have a harder time paying attention in class or do not complete work. II- Social networking sites allow sexual predators easy access to persons' information. With over 250,000,000 users on Facebook a vast majority of them are sexual predators. In the year 2007 Facebook deleted 90,000 sexual predator accounts. Those being the ones reported to traced. And since May they have deleted 5,585 accounts. These sexual predators use social networking sites because they are easy access and you can lie easily on them. You don't have to put your actual name, age, or picture. This makes it very convenient to gain trust from somebody and use it against them. III- Social networking sites can harm your computer and cost money. Both Myspace and Facebook (along with others) have disclaimers telling you to beware or odd friend requests and about opening messages from people you don't know. They can harm viruses, and other computer glitches. Unmarked emails can hold trackers that allow the sender to hack your account, take information, or use the information against you. Trackers may also allow that person to follow what you do online, like visit the website of your bank. Which gives them more access to your accounts and passwords. IX- Social networking takes massive amounts of time. Like any hobby, social networking sites need to be maintained. Constantly updating your account, checking to see which friends are online, and seeing what everybody is doing takes a great amount of time. This can cut into time used to do something more productive or beneficial, such as exercising or reading a new book. We need to face the fact that Americans (some) are along the most obese persons. Although this is important (maintaining health), it is not one of my mom important points. X- Social Networking sites allow simple information to be used against you. As talked about on HLN this morning, information you post can be used against you. Simply saying that you are going on vacation can allow others to take advantage of the situation and break into your house. Not only are you losing your possessions, but you will lose money replacing them. I would like to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to reply, I've been working on my boxes for extemp. Good Luck Aff.\",\n \"Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture Yes, I can agree with you that if we control what we put onto the internet we will minimize our risk of people getting our private information. I will clarify what I meant by third party companies being able to access our information. When signing up for a Microsoft account, the terms and agreements page (the one that nobody ever reads) explains that by creating an account you are allowing Microsoft to give out your information to third party companies. While this might not necessarily be a bad thing it still proves that your information is easily accessible. I know when I go onto the internet 20 hackers are not going to trace my IP address. I was simply trying to make the statement that your information online is easily accessible and we need to be aware and practice internet security. You don't have to always visit third party websites for them to get your information. Sometimes they have already gotten it from another account you signed up for elsewhere. I can also see your point about social media being a tool to use for advice on communication. This may be a true statement however, there are also other better ways to meet people and build confidence in a face to face interaction. There are many church groups, college groups, and even community groups. These are places that you can go and meet like minded people in person and build confidence and get advice on how to communicate. We have so many other options that we are starting to take for granted because of social media. It can poison our society and feed us false information. The news is biased and is full of lies and continues to get worse. Social media can be a great addition to our society. Unfortunately, it is being abused and has become dangerous to our social culture.\",\n \"This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media I believe that todays society privacy is threatened by online social networks, such as facebook, myspace. Even email, which is not defined as a social network, but does have some simualir purposes; to connect people. Term argreements When you sign up to be a member of a social site, you have to agree to their specific terms of use agreements. Under many terms of use agreements, information posted to the site becomes the property of the site and may be sold to advertisers and marketers without your knowledge or agreement. For example, until recentely facebook had rights to content/imformation on your profile that was posted within the terms of use. Even if you had deleted your profile, they would still have all your content in their databases. Does that make it okay for facebook to stil be trusted? \\\"we have the choice to add friends, show our face book, myspace pictures and profile.\\\" Anything you post about yourself can be forwarded to other people, even if you have not included them within your list of friends. Even if you decide to remove content, it will survive in a searchable archive; online posts are, like tattoos, very very hard to remove, and they leave marks .\",\n \"Social networking sites are beneficial Greetings pro, and I'm glad I have the ability to debate this with you. I'll start off with first evaluating your main point in this rebuttal, then I'll be going over my own points that allow me to negate the resolution. My opponents first (and somewhat only point) is that social networking sites *can* help you gain confidence. Now as this may be true, and as social networking sites have the ability to boost the self esteem of some, this by no means supports the idea that ALL are benefited by these sites. Not only is this true, but it also must be taken into account that this statement is not always true. When looking at social media today, we see instagram filters used to hide what people really look like, overused editing, and teenagers using \\\"likes\\\" as a form of acceptance. Not only does this lead to a lack of self-confidence, but it only makes people even more insecure, yet again proving social media is not at all beneficial, but rather detrimental. Now, I'll be moving on to my case, we're I'll be highlighting my own contentions. C1: Social Networking sites create a false reality and sense of importance. Since the beginning of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, users of these social networks have too often posted only their most exciting moments, only post pictures when they are with their friends, etc. This flawed reality we too often create not only hurts these users (by using their amounts of likes to gauge their level of acceptance), but it also hurts the viewers of these posts. When average Joes with ordinary lives (like myself) see posts of only the utmost excitement (out of country, at parties, etc.) it creates the average to believe that their lives are not average, but rather much less than average, because they are not able to post exciting memories and moments on Instagram, like their peers. Going further, according to Cornell University's Steven Strogatz, social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. (1) C2: SN leads to decreases productivity Wired.com posted two studies which demonstrated damage to productivity caused by social networking: Nucleus Research reported that Facebook shaves 1.5% off office productivity while Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. (1) Further, Peter Cohan followed up on the study in a February 2012 piece for Forbes.com, using statistics on Facebook's growth during the interim to calculate that Facebook use within the workplace could lead to a 9.4 percent productivity decrease in companies throughout the U.S., a drop that could collectively cost businesses as much as 1.4 trillion dollars. (2) With social networking leading to a lack of productivity, we see that social networking simply cannot be beneficial in a workplace, and also harms the economy. C3: Cyberbullying Ever heard of the #JadaCounterPose trend that flooded social media? Recent events that have taken place, involving 16-year-old Houston teen Jada, reemphasizes the need for social growth. After being drugged, undressed and raped, while attending a friend's party, Jada dealt with onlookers taunting her with photos, hateful words, and chatter. (3) People have continuously, not sympathized, but rather made fun of Jada, posting mimic photos of her \\\"counter pose,\\\" etc. This is what social media spurs. Although extreme, it can't be ignored that lives are ruined every day simply because of the negligence users have on social media. In conclusion, although there may be benefits to social media, the detriments that come along with these sites outweigh the benefits immensely. I look forward to hearing your response. (1) http://smallbusiness.chron.com... (2) http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...\",\n \"Social networking sites cause more harm than good In response to your point as to how social media can be used for bullying- yes, it's true that bullying online does occur. But I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't bully people anyway, and having the bullying transfer from physical attacks that can actually cause very serious damage to a mere text message is in fact a good thing for society. As well as this, you have to consider the fact that social media does more than just stop bullying being physically damaging- it also is used for good. Friendships can tarnish if you don't see them for extended periods of time, but social media allows people to keep their friendships growing strong. Are you suggesting that ridding society of bullying in a way that can cause permanent damage is a bad thing? Are you suggesting that keeping friendships strong is not worth doing?\",\n \"That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States I have argued that social networking sites have only created an \\\"illusion of privacy\\\". Sites deserve blame for the widespread release of personal information. Why these security settings are so easy to get around is because strict privacy settings inhibit growth. The wider the access to information, the great the commercial value of the site. Also, that hour and 22 minutes a day adds up. While teens are online, they are slowing breaking down their own communication skills. They can bounce around to any social networking site and \\\"lol\\\" all they want. While slowly any relationships they have formed in the real world begin to diminish. I noticed in my opponent's speech as she stated the \\\"schedule\\\" of a teenager. I failed to see that she mentioned time with friends, or socializing. That one hour and 22 minutes is the only socializing that seems to be getting done. My opponent also brought up that social networking sites are good for businesses. However, according to a security company based in Australia, \\\"if a single employee spends one hour of company time on Facebook everyday, it will cost his employer $6,200 per year. For Australia, that translate to a productivity lost of $5 billion annually. That impact in the United States would be even greater as Facebook usage in the United States is more widespread. Again, no matter what they claim, security on social networking sites are not as strong as they appear. People, strangers can still get access to your information. Young people of today are destroying social attributes, slowly losing the basis of communication. If an hour of Facebook, can really cause a company to lose that much of it's money, it would have a more negative impact on our already struggling economy. On balance, we are showing more and more of what social networking sites are doing to our community, and it is not in a positive way.\",\n \"Social networks are beneficial to our society! 'The people I hate keep bugging me !!' Block them.. 'FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc.' The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group. For example, at school we constantly try to impress our classmates in order to vote us for president of the class etc. If somebody cares about being popular he/she wants to be popular in every social group thar he/she participates in. If you're interested in being popular you have to try but you should protect your personality and not lose yourself. This is a basic principal you have to respect during your lifetime not only when you spend your time in a social network but in every social interaction. So, this is not a disadvantage enough important to outweigh social netorks' advantages. 'A FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \\\"look at me, I did this\\\" \\\"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\\\" etc etc etc' It's not about bragging. SOCIAL networks has this purpose: to create a small society of people who communicate, share their interests, share photos etc. Actually, this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. This is why social networks spread Iinformation faster than any other media. Because soneone can discover something interesting and share it with other people. For instance, someone can be informed about a concert that is taking place or a new TV series that he/she would may find niteresting. ' FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction' This is a problem caused only when we don't use socal media wisely. We should be aware of this danger and protect ourselves. When we use them correctly we have the opposite results. We meet with people that we didn't know and we make new friends, we keep in touch with people who live in other cities or even abroad and since the communication is free and easy we speak more often to people we see everyday. All of these things, improce our social life and as I said in round 2, they facilitate face-to-face interactions. 'I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens' This is not a very serious disadvantage. In fact, this is not about social media. This is about your anticipation to hear from someone. You might feel the same thing when, for example, your phone is ringing and when you answer it you realize that they have called you to advertise a product or ask you to participate in a survey. Another example is when you hear the bell ringing and then, when you open the door you see a stranger who wants to sell you some things. 'I am addicted' This is a very frequent phenomenon, but yet again its cause is not social media but the way you ause them. Since you are aware of this danger, you have to put some limits and avoid spending too much time in front of the computer screen. The fact that you have realized the problem is a very positive sign. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself better: 1) Tell your parents to put a time limit to your computer that will allow you to spend a specific amount of time in front of your screen. 2) ask for help by experts 3) regulate your sleeping pattern (so that you ensure that you won't lose sleeping hours-this is a very frequent symptom of the internet addiction- and you will become more organized and self disciplined* 4) make a list of reasons why you will be happier by using the internet less and remind yourself that you can make it!* As you can see there are many ways to avoid getting addicted or to face the problem of addiction. Of course there are some serious dangers but dangers are everywhere. Social media has to offer too many important benefits for someone to claim that the dangers are enough to make them more harmful than useful. In this case the key is to learn how to get protected and not to stop using them. 'The Labour party have a fakebook page' Don't visit it. 'FACEBOOK is a social network' I suppose that you don't like fb so the solution for you is easy: DON'T MAKE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT Thank you, I'm a genius, I know:P All in all, your arguments are more personal and most of your peoblems can be solved by deleting your account if you have or not making one. Other people don't find them serious or annoying enough to stop using them: As of September 2013, 73% of online adults use social networking sites.** Furthermore, social media do not include only fb. So, if you want to prevent people from inviting you to play games you can sign up another social networking site. Finally, I can't understand something. Firstly, you are against social networks and then you say that you have an account while you find it extremely annoying.. Does not make any sense.. Sources: *http://m.wikihow.com... ** http://www.pewresearch.org...\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Reflecting on my opponent's arguments, I consider my position is untenable and I feel I must concede this debate and duly urge the voters to Pro. Thank you.\",\n \"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. It is because I see through the facade of social networking websites straight to the many obvious hazards in the business that I urge a negative ballot on the resolution at hand. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. ============================================================================ Contention I: Social Networking Web sites have little security built into them. ============================================================================ SUBPOINT A- HACKING IS PREVALENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING WEB SITES, AND THIS LEADS TO IDENTITY THEFT Brian Krebs of the Washington Post writes in August of 2008, \\\"Social Networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, and LinkedIn are fast emergiing as some of the most fertile grounds for malicious software, identity theives and online mischief-makers.\\\" Think of the ways that these social networking can be used as a focus for identity theft. The majority of the useres post their birth date and other personal information, items commonly asked by banks to determine a person's identity. Combined with the full name and things like pet names, Mother's maiden name, and other such information, it isn't difficult to work out the rest. According to the Department of Justice in October 2006, \\\"There has been a sharp 34% increase of Social Network users reporting having personal information stolen over the internet in the past year.\\\" With so many hackers targeting social networking websites every day, these site are part of the problem towards helping Identity theft. SUBPOINT B- IDENTITY THEFT HARMS THE ECONOMY According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a September 2003 report on Identity Theft, \\\"1 in 30 Americans surveyed reported having a personal account on the Internet taken over. The average los from the misuse of a victim's personal information [was] $4,800.\\\" The same report explains that this amounts to approimately $48 billion removed from the economy every year. Given the current state of our economy, when money is precious, this 48 billion could not come at a steeper cost. ============================================================================ Contention II: Social networking sites are destroying technological innovation. ============================================================================ While it might seem easy to view the Internet in the abstract, as some ethereal object, the truth is, its not. The internet only exists because of the physical infrastructure provided by private investors. For every byte of information sent on the internet, there exists a physical server that hosts the memory storage for that information. These servers are bought and paid for by a number of actors, the majority of whom are private investment companies. The contention that I bring up is the internet's need for storage capacity is drastically increasing; requiring a drastic increase in the amount of money diverted to purchase infrastructure needs. This is because of social networking websites. SUBPOINT A- THE INTERNET IS REACHING THE LIMITS OF ITS CAPACITY, AND SOCIAL NETWORK WEBSITES ARE CAUSING THIS TO HAPPEN. Without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010. The \\\"unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic\\\" would increase 50-fold by 2015. Eight hours of video is loaded onto Youtube every minute. Five hours of video is loaded onto Facebook and Myspace every minute. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today. [The internet] is a finite service upgraded and maintained by private investors: without necessary investment, it will run out of room Websites like Myspace, Facebook and Youtube all suck up precious bandwidth through uploading massive amounts of pictures and video. There are no other places on the Internet that contain the same amounts of massive files, nor engender such uploading by making it easy and socially desireable. The choice for the internet is to crash, or significantly increase investment in physical infrastruture. Obviously, because of the value provided by the internet, investors will not allow it to crash. What that will mean, however, is that they will be forced to bottleneck their precious resources into creating physical memory storage devices to keep pace with the amount of memory storage. Imagine the internet without major contributors such as \\\"amazon.com\\\" or ebay. Most people in today's economy spend most of their time on these types of websites just to earn a living. Furthermore, imagine the world without google. Pure chaos. It is because I believe anything that harms both the American People and the American economy so much outweighs any positive aspects of social networks, that I urge a negative ballot today.\",\n \"Technology is making us anti social I disagree with that statement. Facebook is a huge social media site with tens of millions of users solely for the purpose of being social. Each innovation seems to make our world more and more connected socially. We might converse in different ways through different mediums, but we are more social now than ever. Text messaging, emails, cellphones, live streams, you name it. 50 years ago? Not a chance.\",\n \"YES ! i think this because, many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook .. etc. and if social networking was apart of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also i feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!\",\n \"Social Networking Sites are Harmful :D Hope this is going to be fun. ==DEFINITIONS==Well, seeing that the PRO has not defined the topic yet, I will take it into my own hands. I define Social Networking Sites as a website for gregarious humans to find communities and companionship. .. Just to clarify, social networking sites do not include dating websites, such as eharmony. com, match. com, etc, as the websites only support 1 on 1 close relationships, as compared to social which pertains to a gathering or community. I define harmful as causing physical/mental damage, or moral injury, evil, wrong. ==REBUTTALS==Con states \\\"These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong! \\\"His argument is based on the premise that children under 14 get on social networking sites. 1) According to Time, Facebook kicks off 20,000 underage users everyday. . http://newsfeed.time.com...2) Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.3)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. ==ARGUMENTS== 1) Large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members, and when you take into consideration that there are plenty of dangerous chat rooms and instant messengers filled with suspicious people, isn't it clear that these social networking sites provide more online safety?2) There exists a balance in privacy between Parents and teenagers, and this is critical as teenagers deserve their own privacy and peace of mind from the micromanagement of some parents, while parents still do hold the right to monitor what their children are doing. Take facebook as an example and its many uses. Private Messages aren't available to outside people, while parents can easily monitor their children and their children's friends' walls to keep track and monitor them. This balance is crucially needed in today's world, as more and more teenagers are becoming social.3) Health. The human mind needs social activity. In fact, in schools nowadays, teachers are teaching students about the three parts to health. This includes your physical health, your mental/emotional health, and finally your social health. Human beings need friends; they need people they can depend on and talk to in times of need. Facebooks helps people socialize and adds an important \\\"happiness\\\" factor in their lives. 4)Social networking sites allows friends and family to keep in touch more easily, as they can instantaneously share information about their lives, such as events, photos, videos and more, with their friends and family, even if they are far away. Forgetting your old friends or distant family members is less likely to happen when you see their faces and updates every day on websites such as facebook.5)Self-Determination Groups. Social networking sites have many benefits. One of them allows people with similar beliefs to connect with one another and stand up for a cause. Take Egypt for an example. Recently, when Egypt fought for democracy, self-determination groups used communication methods such as Facebook. With this I bring my arguments to a close. I shall expand and make new ones, if necessary, in future rounds. =====================================================I await Pro's response. :)!\",\n \"social networks are more harm than good i will start by saying this . have a fair and fun debate. i do believe that social networks help and that in the end of the day: they help!!! they help get jobs and friends\",\n \"All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. But it is the question about those people who can have access to these sites. These sites provide many facilities to them. Students can make their own groups share educational information with each other. People van also communicate with their relatives, friends, etc., all around the globe. So it's the question about those people who can afford these sites.........\",\n \"Social networking sites boon. Con has failed to continue this debate and explain as to why social networking is bad. Therefore I have explained in great amount why it is good. Thanks for the debate!\",\n \"On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Hey guys. I am radicalguy44 and in this debate I will prove that social networking websites do more harm than good. I would like the PRO to start, and please make this an LD style debate! Good luck PRO!\",\n \"Social networking sites are harmful. I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this. Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free. Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.\",\n \"social networking is bad Yes it allows us to interact with people but also exposes our personal information. For example, the con side just mentioned that we can share our photos with each other but those photos are seen by other people also and some of those people are criminals or you can just can say bad guys who can use to that photo for a bad purpose. Social networking reveals our personal information.\",\n \"Social networking sites boon. Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds.\",\n \"is social networking sites really a boon or bane Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of \\\"social gaming\\\". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with \\\"Killing in the Name\\\", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.\",\n \"social networking sites should be banned..!!! Arguments for Social Networking Sites:1. Increased communications with distant relatives.2. Increased communications with friends.3. Entertainment (because who, at some point on Facebook or Myspace, hasn't tried Mafia or Farmville or something?)Refutations to my opponent's sole argument:\\\"Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.\\\"1. False. We bring privacy into the public domain. Social networking sites are inherently public, and posting private information is something only we can do. If you don't want your personal information out there, don't put it out there.2. Even if social networking sites are responsible for privacy becoming public, my opponent never establishes why this is a bad thing, but a) merely asserts that it happens, and b) merely asserts that it's a bad thing and cause for banning. He has proved neither.Resolution = Negated\",\n \"social networking is bad actually social networking is a superb thing. it keeps us in touch with our relatives in foreign and also helps to interact with our friends. it also allows us to share pics of our life and to share the joy!!!!!!!\",\n \"Social media does more harm than good I believe that social media does more harm than good for our society. It is supposedly makes us more connect; however, I argue that it actually is making us more anti-social.\",\n \"users under 18 using Facebook Thanks for your response. My opponent cited a study which a Doctor Underwood stated that the activities posted in FB are for everyone to see and therefore a bad thing. Not really, since anyone can edit their privacy settings. Facebook, like other social netwoking sites have upsides and downsides. Users may receive positive or negative feedback from others. But does that mean that we should totally ban them to teens? Again, no. I stated that FB can be used for educational purposes, my opponent refuting that statement by saying we have other references like the library is irrelevant. My opponent believes that FB made people more physically distant and gives people a false sense on getting better socially and makes people more closed minded. Since my no sources and accurate references were cited here and it's a he-says-she-says, let me start by introducing the study of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, where they stated that social networking sites helped 60 million people on major life issues via contacting friends and experts online. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Also, according to the National School Board Association, 59% of students use social networking sites for educational purposes. This highly supersedes my opponent's assumption that teens only use social networking sites for negative stuffs. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Bottomline, my opponent just repeated her argument which I already previously refuted. Again, just because FB may harm its users does not mean we should affect the majority. Sorry for it being short, really busy IRL. No time to write.\",\n \"Social networking is good for students They have embraced it by the billions! 1.35 billion users are on Facebook. 645,750,000 users are on Twitter and 200 million are on Instagram (Hampton). 72% of all internet users are on social media sites. 90% of 13 to 17 year old have some access to social media (Common Sense Media). And social media is growing dramatically each day. Obviously there is power and benefit to being part of the movement. That is part of the reason why social networking is good for students.\",\n \"Social Networking Sites are Harmful The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \\\"The most effective networking is face to face,\\\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \\\"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\\\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )\",\n \"Social networking sites cause more harm than good I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org...\",\n \"Social Networking sites are a boon \\\"Powerful new technologies provide great benefits, but they also change the way we live, and not always in ways that everyone likes. An example is the spread of air conditioning, which makes us more comfortable, but those who grew up before its invention speak fondly of a time when everyone sat on the front porch and talked to their neighbours rather than going indoors to stay cool and watch TV. The declining cost of information processing and communication represents a powerful new technology, with social networking as the most recent service to be provided at modest cost. Through the course of our surfing on the social web. I would first log you in with a thought, and then straight away hit the notifications and give justify my argument's and towards the end I bang up my words with an error 404 i.e. make this august house believe my points and over shadow my complacent virtual socialites on the other side. But will social networking sites really improve the quality of people's lives? The minuses are that all of this sharing can be dangerous, through gossip and potential abuse of the services. Examples include reported suicides linked to malicious gossip circulated on a social network. Some people become addicted to life on the computer screen, and withdraw from personal contact — it's a long way from people sitting on the porch talking to friends and neighbours... Tabbing onto notifications-- 1st notification - Social networking sites are a major distraction from learning. Psychologist Kirschnera told the Daily Mail that his team studied 219 U.S. university students between ages 19 and 54, and found that Facebook users had a typical grade point average of 3.06, while \\\"non-users\\\" had an average GPA of 3.82. The psychologist said the study wasn't about whether Facebook's good or bad, but goes more to the stereotype that younger people are fluid multi-taskers 2nd notification Social networking sites have given rise to online frauds and to paedophilia - children are unknowingly exposed to voyeuristic vultures. As I mentioned earlier, we have become addicts and are just blindly following the herd. There is no more confidentiality or respect for human idiosyncrasies. Playing online games, sharing your private information and photos has become the norm. If you do not participate you are looked as a pariah or an outcast. 3rd notification It is unethical for social network sites to use personal information to enable advertisers to better target you as a consumer. Personal information should not be used for commercial purposes. It is too invasive, and can cause emotional damage. For example, what if your profile indicates that your girlfriend just broke up with you, for example. An ad agency is allowed to obtain this information and use it to send you an advertisement on break-ups. This could do emotional damage. Now moving to facts and figures… The world is seriously obsessed with social networking.. As of 2011 there are 5, 00,000,000 users on Facebook i.e. 1 out of every 13th person in the world. 48/. Of the total users use Facebook right after they wake up! 57/. Of the people talk more online than in their real life. Approximately 2,000 billion notifications all over the social networking world. Now, I let you to ponder ladies and gentlemen will this not bring about disbalance in political, social, economical, so on and so forth aspects of a person's life and the world.\",\n \"Social networking is good for students With this new medium, have come many new opportunities and new uses. It offers a beneficial place for students to learn about job openings, increase their connection with friends and improves relationships and it helps students learn about society. If students do not know how to use the mediums available now, they will not know how to apply for jobs, or stay connected, or learn about news of the world right at their fingertips.\",\n \"Social Networking Social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc., is as good as, if not better than, face-to-face interaction and socializing.\",\n \"Social Networking sites are a boon Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc\",\n \"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. As my opponet forfeited his round all my points stand. Go CON.\",\n \"that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US I'm sorry, these aren't all my arguments. Intro As technology has evolved, mankind has made means of communication more convenient, efficient, and powerful. Thus, we have reached a new era of expressiveness, and that is why I affirm the resolution that, on balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. I will prove to you why social networking sites serve as a superb medium of communication that positively impacts social capital among its users, helps the American business as well as provides jobs. Point One: Social Capital What is a social networking web site? It is a revolutionary web service centered around building online communities for people that share common interests. With it, people can first create their own user profiles, and then create their own virtual community, with as many affiliates as they would like. As we live through life, friends come and go, and sadly, some we may never get a chance to see again. However, with social networking sites, friends can stay in touch no matter how far apart they may be. Since people can share as much information as they like with anyone in their online community anywhere that has internet access, social networking websites increases social capital. It's simple logic, if someone has the ability to share as much information as they like with as many people as they like, more time to talk with Point Two: Jobs Since social networking websites are such a convenient, efficient, and powerful tools, people have come to realize that it can be used for more innovative activities than simply socializing with friends. Since many professionals use social networking websites to help them find jobs, social networking websites benefit the American economy. According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. Point Three: Business According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. thank you and good luck Now to begin, social networking websites are meant to increase communication. When you use a system such as that you are accepting terms of agreement. These terms cover a whole basis of rules and liabilities. I have recently moved a great distance and these sites such as myspace have helped me keep in contact with my old friends and my new ones. Some of these are even a stress reliever for most kids. Kids will come home and go on and talk with there friends for hours and if they had a bad day, this may just help them with that. Also these sites increase creativity, basically by creating your own profile you are making your own PERSONAL site. It could be private or public. Now about privacy. Not everyone can get into your account if you don't want certain people to get in your account then you put it on private. Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends.\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote\",\n \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. \\\"Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum.\\\" Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.\",\n \"social networking is bad Today social networking and internet has become one of the most important part of our life. But is it reakky good for us. I dont think so. According to me social networking has caused many problems in our life. It has harmed a lot than helping us.\",\n \"On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Alright, thanks radicalguy for posting an interesting topic, and lets get this started! As a sidenote, I am a bit pressed for time these days, so i'm apologizing in advance for the inevitable brevity of my case. I affirm the resolution resolved, \\\"On balance, social networking websites do more good than harm\\\" I'll start off with definitions. Social Networking Site: \\\"A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., who share interests and/or activities. A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services.\\\" My value for judging 'good' and 'harm' will be utilitarianism, a value which we can both meet common ground with. My criteria will be social connectivity/harmony and the spreading of information, both of which are values intrinsic to the betterment of the human race. Without strong communities, and without common knowledge being spread amongst the people, we never could have achieved he technological and sociological wonders that we cherish today. Contention 1: Social networking strengthens social bonds, leading to a myriad of positive outcomes. Sub Point A: The strengthening of social bonds aids the development of social harmony. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are used as means to build up friendships, have conversations, and compete in small games in a positive atmosphere. This new vehicle of interacting with other people inevitably leads to making better friends and having more people to interact with, allowing people to exchange ideas even when they cannot meet in person. They also make the process of forementioned socialization streamlined and expedient. Sub Point B: These sites allow for international correspondence, leading to international fraternity. Years ago, the standard means of distant communication was by letter. Of course, the obvious flaws were the time involved and the need for a specific address. The advent of the e-mail made messaging instantaneous, but a specific destination was still requisite. With the creation of Facebook and Myspace however, it is possible to link to and find people from all across the globe and communicate in a streamlined manner. Really, all these sites are trying to do is simplify and improve the capability of communication around the globe. The implications are staggering. Bonds of friendship crossing borders, even continents is something our predecessors would not have dared dream of. But it most certainly exists. Also, it provides a medium for communication for distant people who already know each other. For example, I recently moved from MA to CA, and wanted to stay in touch with my network of friends. Would e-mail have been functional? Of course. But Facebook allowed me to stay in touch with friends with unparalleled proximity. In the negatives world, I would have been confined to stiff e-mails instead of Facebook's fluidity. In their world, NO SOCIAL NETWORKING WOULD EXIST. Contention 2: Social Networking Sites Aid in spreading information and current events. Through being updated constantly through the thoughts and musing of others on a live basis, it leads to the assimilatiof knowledge of current events. How I learned about MJ's death? Facebook. Chilean Earthquak? Facebook. Now, while the negative would say that sites like Google News or the New York Times could be used, people go to Facebook much more often just because it has a positive atmosphere. Long have educators attempted to educate the masses while simultaneously entertaining, them, and these sites do just that. They make events which would once have been nerdy to orate about socially relevant and requisite to prosper in the comments section. Sub Point A: Social Networking Sites help spread different opinions and thoughts about an issue, leading to mental diversity. By allowing near instantaneous response and analysis of world events, fresh perspectives and vantage points can be seen, allowing for lively debate and introspection. For example, I have a friend of mine who converted from Christianity to Atheism after a long and philosophical theological discussion. Contention 3: Social Networking Allows and Encourages the creation of grassroots clubs and movements. With the feature of easily being able to find mutual friends and send out messages with intuitive responses, Facebook allows for the expedient creation of clubs and organizations joined together with mutual goals such as spreading political awareness or fund raising. The expediency of recruitment and the ability to organize events and hierarchy are once again improved by social networking. For all these reasons, you must affirm. I am now ready for Cross Ex.\",\n \"Social networking sites are harmful. Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub\",\n \"Social networking sites are beneficial Good day, Con, this is the second round, and I hope this debate will turn out very great. Before I state my second and third argument, I will present a rebuttal for your arguments. First of all, I agree with the fact that Social Networking sites are beneficial, but it is also detrimental, since I have seen cyber bullying a lot in these days. But, rethink your first argument. Because of growth of the society and the growth of technology, people likes to post their 'non-exciting moments' too, because they have got time to be in somewhere they can rest. For example, draw a picture in your mind that you're in a nice, cozy cafe. People like to take pictures of themselves resting, and it is very true and real isn't it? They do not use a program to make it all false. Why do they need to when they're just trying to post in a real way? Now I will state my second and third argument. P2: Social Networking sites can be diverse. As I said in the first argument, social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, google+ lets you communicate with millions of people around the globe. Now, as you know, each one of them may have different viewpoints over something. It may be the effect of their religion, culture, environment(etc.). Because of this benefit, we can learn to think about others personalities, understand their viewpoints. For example, It can develop social skills such as understatement of the social economy and skills used in the society. Brendesha M. Tynes, PhD, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois said that \\\"Online social networking can facilitate identity exploration, provide social cognitive skills such as perspective taking, and fulfill the need for social support, intimacy, and autonomy. Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities -- a primary goal of adolescent development. This requires constant reflection on who they are, on who they want to become, and on their values, strengths, and weaknesses. As teens prepare to enter the adult social world, online social environments provide training wheels, allowing young people to practice interaction with others in the safety of their homes.\\\" Like this, understanding the viewpoints and the minds of millions of people can only be happened with social medias. You can also learn foreign language in some social medias because of hangouts, or diverse groups of people. P3: Educational benefits of social networking sites The first computer was a big pile of big gears. As the history moves on, everything evolved. The technology has been largely improved over the years, and we have moved on to the 'age of technology'. There are touchable screens, mails that send our message around the globe close to the speed of light, we have nano-sized hardwares and computers and it still moves on. The evolution of technology had a big effect on globalized educations. Unlike the past, teachers and students now can browse infinite amounts of ideas from the internet. The viewpoints are very different, and we learn to look at an object in most ways to understand it better. With technology, people can instantly browse ideas and major documents just in their smartphones. Look at the case of Samsung Galaxy 5 LTE*3. It can instantly download in 0.4 seconds. That is amazing, and think about the way students can browse ideas that fast. It helps students to talk more specifically about their schoolwork. Also, it urges students to try out new technology. In return, they get massive amounts of education skills. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that \\\"Almost 60 percent of students who use social networking talk about education topics online and, surprisingly, more than 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork... With words, music, photos and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online... Only a minority of students has had any kind of negative experience with social networking in the last three months; even fewer parents report that their children have had a negative experience over a longer, six-month period.\\\" As you see, there are many benefits according to NSBA. Getting a good school experience lets them to have great jobs. And thats not all. Since it can let people who are owning a large company see your educational record fast, they can soon get interested in you. According to Nicole Ellison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, \\\"I believe the benefits provided by social network sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as individuals, and that, as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations, we will see an increase in their utility. Anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes from these technologies -- such as political activities organized via Facebook or jobs found through LinkedIn -- is well-known, but now a growing corpus of academic research on social networks sites supports this view as well... Social technologies never have predictable and absolute positive or negative effects, which is why social scientists dread questions like these. In considering the effects of social network sites, it is clear that there are many challenges to work through -- the increasing commercialization of this space, the need to construct strong privacy protections for users, and safety issues -- but I believe the benefits we receive as a society provided by these tools far outweigh the risks.\\\" In a instant moment, social networking sites leads you to success - in the fastest way possible. I hope you answer my argument, and let this debate be a great experience to ourselves! Links 2,3 :http://socialnetworking.procon.org...\",\n \"All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.\",\n \"All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Of course it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our life. It lets you get updated with recent activities of your friends and more importantly recent social affairs. It provides you an option for participating in the social activities and a scope to bring a change in the society.\",\n \"Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States Social Networking sites are a tricky thing to debate because of the various pros and cons. I decided to take this debate on however. First off, many people are reunited through social networking site. Second, many people find life long companions through dating websites. Third, people can keep in touch with family from all across the world. These are a few of the pros.\",\n \"Social Networking I'd like to welcome my opponent to the site; to get better acquainted, I figured that I would take this debate challenge, and observe her debating style for myself; not to mention, I wanted to expand my horizons a bit, and talk about something a bit more lighthearted. To clarify one thing: If it wasn't already known, then social networking sites are things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as opposed to dating sites like Match.com, Chemistry.com, etc. To things manageable, I will make only a couple of opening arguments, and I will briefly refute the Con's. I - Social networking is beneficial. Man is, by nature, a social creature; that is, people need people. As technology advances, so does mankind's means of communicating and socializing; for example, we've developed things such as the telegraph/telegram, mail service, telephone/cell phone, video chat, and now, we are looking at social networking sites; thus, we can see that, because social networking has increased the ability of people to communicate and socialize, whether city, state, nation, or even worldwide, social networking sites have clearly had a positive impact on society. II - Social networking sites balance a child's privacy and a parent's right to know. A classic clash always happens when pitting the right to privacy of a child against the right to know of a parent; however, social networking sites find a happy medium, so that neither side is overlooked; for example, on Facebook, a teenager may have private conversations with a friend over the private messaging system, but the parent of this teenager will still be able to keep track of things such as posts made to other friends' walls, pictures posted, etc. Social networking sites give parents the ability to keep tabs on many of their child's online postings, such as pictures and personal information, but without having to directly invade on their child's privacy; this again proves that social networking sites have had a positive effect on society. III - Social networking sites provide a degree of online safety. While all websites and internet users are vulnerable to some degree, the openness and oversight provided by the staff of social networking sites, give or take a few situations, ensures a higher degree of safety than might be found elsewhere on the internet. While these sites don't have to take direct responsibility for their users, there's still a higher sense of security than would be found in unchecked e-mail services, instant messengers, and chat rooms full of shady characters; so, to some extent, social networking sites provide all the benefits of other services, such as IM and e-mail, but without the fear of being stalked by a predator or serial killer [though I can't account for the harmless creepers that tend to accumulate on some sites. :)]. Now, to move on to the Con's sole contention. 1. Social networking is potentially harmful. a. A lot of different things can be potentially harmful; however, simply because something has the potential to be misused does not mean that it has had a negative effect on society; prescription medication, for example, can (and often is) abused by the people to whom it is prescribed; however, this potential for abuse does not mean that we do away with prescription drugs completely, and it is the same with social networking sites. b. In the case with Megan Meier, this girl was already reported to suffer from depression, was on several medications, and since the third grade, had been kept under the careful eye of her psychiatrist [http://en.wikipedia.org...]; as we can see, Megan was already in a fragile condition; as we can see, it was not MySpace that was responsible for Megan's tragic suicide; rather, this unfortunate event can be attributed to Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and the several other people who aided in operating the account and harassing Megan; clearly, MySpace didn't intend for their site to be used in such a way, and this is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Drew, among others, was brought to trial, not the MySpace staff; for example, if someone is shot in a nightclub, nobody holds the nightclub staff responsible for being unaware that the shooting would happen; they hold the shooter responsible, as he is the one that committed the detestable act; in the same way, MySpace cannot be held accountable for the malicious acts of other people, and this instance, while tragic, is not a negative effect of social networking sites, but merely the misuse of them. I will stand down for the moment, and allow my opponent to chew on my opening arguments for a bit. Good luck, Con!\",\n \"Social Networking Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**\",\n \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good I am here to affirm and convince that \\\"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\\\" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication. This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!\",\n \"Social networking sites are beneficial First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly.\",\n \"That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking is defined as a web-based service that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. There are dozens of great things about social networking, but the main positives are the increase in social capital they provide, the political participation it increases, and the staggering learning potential it offers First, there is Social Capital. Social Capital is an economic idea which refers to connections between individuals and entities. Its economically valuable and it helps people link together and people who trust and assist one another are extremely powerful. the better a company understands their possible consumers, the more social capital. Multiple studies from such universities as Northwestern prove that the more usage a company puts into Social Networking sites, the more social capital they receive. not to mention that social networking is a $15 billion market, from advertising alone. Next, these sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and even debate.org, increase dramatically the statistic of political participation according to major academic studies. our new president, Barack Obama, used social networking tremendously during his campaign and he, obviously, won. his main site was Change.gov, but he also used other large sites as a crowd sourcing tool in order to attract even more of the young people vote. In continuation, social networking sites are not just for teenage socializing, it also contains enormous potential to be a learning cornerstone. in a study performed by the University of Minnesota, the social networking sites were helping students learn 21st century skills such as developing a positive attitude towards technology, editing and customizing content, learning online design, practicing safe and responsible use of info, and sharing creative original work. this show the Internet's overall enormous potential. Thank you, and please affirm this resolution.\",\n \"Social networking sites boon. In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that \\\"Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds\\\" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.\",\n \"debate with yourself Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children\\\"s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.\",\n \"Social networks are beneficial to our society! I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.\",\n \"Social networking sites are good for our society! Social networking sites are good for our society!\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":33,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Can video games be healthy\nMy final argument is as follows:- Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Also according to Dmitri A. Christakis of the Seattle Children\"s Research Institute, those who watch a lot of simulated violence, such as those in video games, can become immune to it, more inclined to act violently themselves, and are less likely to behave emphatically. The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. The American Psychological Association (APA) also concluded that there is a \"consistent correlation\" between violent game use and aggression, but finds insufficient evidence to link violent video play to criminal violence. An open letter by a number of media scholars, psychologists and criminologists, however, find APA\"s study and conclusion to be misleading and alarmist. On the other hand, many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime which coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. On the other hand, a study by researchers at the North Carolina State University, New York and the University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology points out that gamers usually do not replace their offline social lives with online game playing, but rather it expands them. In fact, among gamers, being a loner is not the norm. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. On the other hand, a University of Buffalo study suggests that violence and bad behavior played in the virtual world may be contributing to better behavior in the real world. Gamers who play violent games may feel guilty about their behavior in the virtual world and this may make them be more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University\"s Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children\"s attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids\" addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal. According to Catherine Steiner-Adair, a Harvard-affiliated psychologist and author of the best-selling book \"The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationship in the Digital Age\", if kids are allowed to play \"Candy Crush\" on the way to school, the trip will be quiet, but it\"s not what kids need. \"They need time to daydream, deal with anxieties, process their thoughts and share them with parents, who can provide reassurance.\" I accordace to the latest comment, check the previous argument, it has links to websites OK, moving on here are a few links for you: 1. http://healthresearchfunding.org... 2. greengarageblog.org/10-primary-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games 3. https://my.vanderbilt.edu... 4. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/.../Pros-and-cons-of-playing-video-games.html 5. nlcatp.org/5-major-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games/ 6. 7. https://prezi.com... 8. 9. https://prezi.com... 10. 11. 12. https://prezi.com... 13. https://archive.org... 14. http://www.barnegatschools.com... 15. http://sharpbrains.com... 16. www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame156-1002/pressrel51.asp 17. www.happychild.com.au/articles/violence-in-video-games-what-parents-need-to-know 18. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 19. money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/technology/video-game-violence/ 20. www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/ 21. www.healthline.com \" Healthline News 22. www.independent.co.uk \" News \" Science 23. www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075 24. time.com/4000220/violent-video-games/ 25. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 26. news.sky.com/.../study-violent-video-games-lead-to-aggression 27. 28. www.theonion.com/.../case-and-against-letting-children-play-video-... 29. gamerant.com/video-game-violence-survey/ 30. studymoose.com/do-violent-video-games-cause-bad-behavior-essay","Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior\nHello, 16kadams! I will argue for the case that violent video games do not cause increased aggressive behavior. The burden of proof is on pro; pro is arguing for the contention. == 1. The supposed link is unclear == P1. If there is a clear link between violent video games and violence, pro meets his burden of proof. P2. There is no clear link between violent video games and violence. C. Pro does not meet his burden of proof. Justification for Premise 2: While there are some studies which supposedly demonstrate a link between violence and violent video games, some recent studies suggest that this is not the case: real life environments are different than experimental environments in terms of how they influence people. Research has shown that sometimes violent media correlates with more violence; however, during other time periods, the influence inverts. This shows that the relation between the two is most likely correlation, and not causation. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) == 2. Violence has been going down, despite the rising popularity of video games == P1. If video games cause violence, then increased popularity of violent video games would increase violence. P2. Violence is decreasing, yet the popularity of violent video games is increasing. C. Video games do not cause violence. Justification for premise 2: despite the fact that the popularity of video games increased between 1990 and 2010, the crime rates actually dropped. (https://commons.wikimedia.org...)(http://www.bjs.gov...) This shows that there is a lack of correlation between the popularity of violent video games and crime rates. By the way, for my case to work, the popularity of video games should have increased over the past years; this is indeed demonstrated by the fact that the video game industry grows by around 16.7% annually. (http://www.forbes.com...)","violent video games\nwell no B/c some kids know how to control them self like no id would start killing people b/c of one game and like for example Gta V no kid would start robbing cars and they could have family time b/c for example I play with y cousin black ops 2 and we still have time together","Video Games cause violence\nThe resolution: \"Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about\"In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games. -------------------------A. Definitions and Clarifications1A - InformationThough my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution. \"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )\"Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.1B - Assumption about the resolution\"Video games\" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include \"all\" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that \"Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence\", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.1C - The Definition of ViolenceViolence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person. vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns] noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. B. ArgumentsB1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisomeMost especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as \"big enough to worry about\". For that reason, I dismiss the \"big enough to worry about\" part of pro's resolution. In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be \"violent\" as a result of video gaming. B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolutionMy opponent has presented me with the resolution that:\"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc. \"Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance. Comparison:\"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it\"This concept can be applied to video games. B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youthsYouth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence. The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people. The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully \"in favour of video games\", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause. --References--[1] - (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)[2] - (. http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games[3] - (. http://www.apa.org...)","Violent video games should NOT be banned\nI think video games should be banned because there are much more better things to do that are more healthy for you. Not only do they take little physical movement but they also use electricity. Kids should be involved with a sport or school. But a pro to video games is the wii. Some games on it are actually good exercise for you. Try the \" WiiFit\" It all depends if video games are getting in the way of better things that you can do. Violent video games are not just violent on the screen-the violence can often be seen in the players actions afterwards. Popular war-based games such as Call of Duty and World of Warcraft can make the player lose respect for military and past wars. They also lose respect for the sanctity of life by underestimating the seriousness in killing or injuring another being.","should vilent video games be banned\nIt is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. \"In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. \" [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: \"It's clear that the ‘big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy. \" [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports. .. \"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. \" [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it. .. Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop \" from the repetition of actions \", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth \"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. \" Posner adds, \"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. \" [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before. .. .this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. \"The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. \" [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] \"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. \" [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. . http://www.suite101.com... 5. . http://www.pbs.org... 6. . http://videogames.procon.org...","is video games bad for kids\nThe American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a July 26, 2000 \"Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children\" available at www.aap.org: \"Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music.\" July 26, 2000- American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Pediatrics American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) American Psychological Association Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, wrote in a 2009 article \"FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence,\" available on psychology.iastate.edu: \"The results, overall, have been fairly consistent across types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and across visual media type (television, films, video games). There is a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Exposing children and adolescents (or 'youth') to violent visual media increases the likelihood that they will engage in physical aggression against another person. By 'physical aggression' we mean behavior that is intended to harm another person physically, such as hitting with a fist or some object. A single brief exposure to violent media can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Repeated exposure leads to general increases in aggressiveness over time. This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal.\" 2009- Craig Anderson, PhD David Greenfield, PhD, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said in a Sep. 20, 2013 panel discussion titled \"Growing Up GTA\" available at huffingtonpost.com: \"My opinion on video game violence, which has a very powerful reward system wired into it, is that continued exposure desensitizes people to the experience of violence. But the other big issue, along with the reward structure, is that it teaches them a skill set that they might not otherwise develop, especially the first person shooter games. I have a real problem with giving people, in the name of entertainment, a technology that desensitizes violence, and then teaches you how to commit violence more accurately \" and then elevating people's levels of dopamine\" [T]hose studies have been absolutely supported. When you put people on a PET scanner or an functional MRI, their brain lights up like a Christmas tree when they're doing these games, especially when they hit the reward points that are designed by the gamers to\" keep people gaming because that's how these games make their money. Nothing is engaged in at the levels that I see gaming at, as a form of entertainment or dopamine elevation, unless it's a narcotic like cocaine for instance. How could you be exposed to something this toxic and have it not affect you?\" Sep. 20, 2013- David N. Greenfield, PhD Leland Yee, PhD, State Senator (D-CA) wrote in a June 22, 2009 amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court for Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger: \"The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior. This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth... Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published... These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence.\" June 22, 2009- Leland Yee, PhD Brad Bushman, PhD, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, stated the following in a Feb. 18, 2013 article titled \"Why Do People Deny Violent Media Effects?\" available at psychologytoday.com \"People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don\"t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that\"s not true. We haven\"t 'proven' video games directly cause violence because it can\"t be proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that doesn\"t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is certainly correlated with violence \" just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the world. These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work.\" Feb. 18, 2013- Brad J. Bushman, PhD Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA), wrote in an article titled \"Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?\" on www.pbs.org (accessed Oct. 6, 2014): \"Parents do know that children learn by observing, imitating what they observe, and acting on the world around them. According to child psychologist Michael Rich, children develop what psychologists call 'behavioral scripts.' They interpret their experiences and respond to others using those scripts. One can easily see how repeated exposure to violent behavioral scripts can lead to increased feelings of hostility, expectation that others will behave aggressively, desensitization to the pain of others, and an increased likelihood of interacting and responding to others with violence. Violent video games are an ideal environment in which to learn violence. Violent video games: Place the player in the role of th","Violent Video Games\nAlthough I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called \"Do Video Games Make Teens Violent\" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.","Ban the sale of violent video games\nhttp://www.neisd.net... These are the rules that go with an LD topic such as this p,ease provide by them and no plagiarizing. Please also share sources. I will do so likewise. Let's begin! -Here is what some of the people out there have to say: \"Violent video games are teaching are kids to be violent. It is a known fact that we learn by repetition. By allowing children to play violent video games it starts to desensitize them at an early age to the effects of violence. These games were originally designed for military training to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy.\" -\"Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,\"Oh, my son promised to never act like that,\" or,\"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun\". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun. Violent video games like MWF3 or Call of Duty or Assassins Creed are insults to military men. They're at war, fighting for our country, and you've got your butt on a couch, laughing at people who are getting shot on a video game. This is a serious offense to soldiers. And what if you played these games and someone you love is in the military. Would they feel offended. Go on. Ask yourself. They are insulting, bad for children, and brutal.\" -\"Those Who voted 'No' are delusional fools. It's plainly obvious, video games make people of all ages agitated and aggressive. -I've seen it in my nephews and niece and there are countless studies available at your finger tips. The vast majority of respondents to this article are delusional people with absolutely no sense of what's going on. Now that is a cold hard fact and highly unfortunate that there are so many video game addicts.\" -\"Yes violent video games should be banned!! Police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For example a 8 year old boy oblivious to the real life fact that if you shot someone in real life they would die and not come back, took out a gun and shot is grandmother. His grandmother did die and did not come back. He is now facing life in prison after juvenile hall of course for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games pump things into children's heads so bad these days they have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life.\" -Now let's talk some philosophy. -Posted by Mike LaBossiere on June 27, 2011 Leave a comment (21)Go to comments I have been using my budget-cut based summer break from teaching to do various home improvements. The point of mentioning this is that I have been alternating between baking in the Florida sun and being exposed to \"second hand paint fumes\" (as opposed to directly huffing the stuff) as such, my writing might be a bit off. I have checked for any obvious weirdness (well, weirdness beyond the usual sort), but I apologize in advance for any heat/paint induced lapses in logic. I blame the flying frogs that seem to be infesting my house now. In any case, down to business. -The supreme court recently ruled that California\"s law banning the sale of video games to minors that \"depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.\" The ruling was, of course, based on the first amendment. -Being both a gamer and an ethicist, I have thought (and written) a fair amount about the banning video games. On the one hand, a very reasonable case can be made for placing age based restrictions on video games. While studies of the impact of virtual violence on children are hardly conclusive, it seems reasonable to accept that exposure to virtual violence can have an impact on how the child thinks. As Aristotle has argued, people become habituated by what they do. Children are, of course, even more likely to be influenced. They are more receptive than adults and tend to lack the cognitive resources that adults are supposed to possess. As such, it seems reasonable to keep young children away from violence-even the virtual sort. -On the other hand, there are reasonable grounds for rejecting such bans. First, there are reasons for doubting that such games have a significant impact on children. The psychological studies are open to question and, of course, humans seem to be naturally prone to violence ( the stock \"we like violent games because we are violent, we are not violent because of the games\" argument). When I was a kid, long before violent video games, we spent a lot of time playing war. While the effects were not very special (cap guns), we certainly did act out killing each other. When violent video games came along, they simply allowed me to do what I had done as a kid (play at killing) only with ever better graphics and effects). As such, banning violent video games to protect children from the influence of violence seems like something that simply will not work, thus making such a law unnecessary. -Second, there is the matter of freedom of expression and consumption. While minors do have a reduced right of freedom of consumption (they cannot but alcohol, tobacco, guns or porn), imposing on their freedom only seems justified when it protects them from a significant harm in cases in which they lack the judgment to (in theory at least) make an informed choice. Even if violent video games have a harmful impact, it can be contended that the harm is not on par with that of adult vices such as alcohol or tobacco but rather on par with junk food. So, just as it is sensible to think that children should not eat junk food, yet also think there should not be laws banning children from buying candy bards, it seems sensible to think that although young kids should not buy violent video games, there should not be laws against doing so. -Third, there is the matter of what is fit for the state to control and what is fit for parents to control. There are, obviously enough, matters that should be handled by the state and those that should remain a matter of parental choice. Alcohol, guns and tobacco are so dangerous that it seems reasonable that the state has a interest in keeping children away from these things by force of law. There is also a category of things were the state should aid parents in making choices, such as diet and exercise, but where the state should not intervene except in extreme cases. As noted above, I am inclined to put violent video games in the category of junk food. As such, parents should be informed about what the games contain (which is already done by the rating system) and the choice of whether or not their children play the games or not should be up to them. Naturally, children who lack parents or whose parents are dangerously incompetent will fall under the domain of the state, but these would be relatively rare cases.\" http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com... -BY ERIK BRUDVIGViolent media has existed as long as human history and the debate over how or when to control it is as hotly contested as ever. With the trend towards greater realism and graphic content that began in the 90's, videogames have found themselves the focal point du jour. But how much of an impact have these violent videogames had? We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts. -Selling an Image Anybody who has been playing games for the past five years must surely have noticed the recent and accelerating trend towards \"thugsploitation\" games. The success of Grand Theft Auto III assured us all that we'd be seeing a steady stream of imitators hoping for their own piece of the pie. Over the top violence, sexual themes, and drug references have become commonplace in videogames and certainly take more than their fair share of the mainstream press's time. But how far has this \"even negative press is good press\" philosophy taken these games? Eighty-five percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated \"E\" for Everyone, \"T\" for Teen, or \"E10+\" for Everyone 10+. (Entertainment Software Association) Additionally, only one (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) of the top 10 grossing games for 2005 was rated \"M\" for Mature. That's not to say that these top selling games are suitable for all ages. Seven of the top ten games of 2005 have some form of violence listed as a descriptor by the ESRB, but it certainly speaks volumes about what the impact of the steady stream of Mature games is on the consumer side. Nintendo, a company always concerned with the content of games appearing on its systems, may be on to something more than just being \"kiddy.\" Despite the relatively small market share these Mature games have garnered, it hasn't stopped our lawmakers from latching on to them and turning them into a political focal point. -Public Policy With all of the uproar surrounding the Columbine shootings and other similar tragedies, as well as the Hot Coffee controversy, lawmakers have been quick to propose legislation that would limit the access of violent material to minors. Violent game laws have been proposed or considered in Kansas, Utah, Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Illinois, California, Germany, and recently, the U.S. Senate. So far, none of these proposals have become a reality at your local videogame store. -read more @ http://www.ign.com...","Violent videogames/movies/books/music do not lead to violent behavior.\nNumerous studies have been done and it has been found that after playing violent video games, listening to violent music and watching violent movies the children involved have become more violent. The books may be the tools they used to find ideas on how to release their violent instincts. (I personally feel books do not do so) Also, you argued that violent people are attracted to violent forms of entertainment. There was a study on this and it was found that the most violent were worst affected by the violent entertainment. This means that the violent become even more violent. So you are right that the violent people are attracted to the violent forms of entertainment but this means they still become more violent.","Video Games Cause Violence\nVideo Games DO cause violence. The violent nature of our generations of current games brainwash peoples minds into thinking it's, \"Just a game.\" Or, \"It's not bad.\" Little do they know it makes them into killers.","violent video games\nsome kids around my neighborhood one day i was out side and this kid and brother were talk about gta and they were going that they were going to beat up this with a pocket knife and and they jump the kid and i had to help the kid how was getting beat up i look at him and he had a stab wound","should children play mature rated video games\nI think that children should not play mature video games because many, children can get influenced by the stuff in the game especially at a young age. Now that games are becoming more and more violent this issue becomes even more dangerous with the sudden interest of children in mature rated games. I have been told on many axons that the games was mature rated but i understand the things that go on in the games i play. However there are many other children that don't understand what happens in these games. The worst part about this situation is that games graphics are now being improved and if it a gory game, that gets upped too. So, main point is that game sellers should stop children under the age of 12 to buy mature rated games.","Parents are responsible for raising their kids correctly.\nFor one, the parents do not have to buy the game. and when they do sometime they don't look at the ratings of them games.they could accidentally end up buying a 5 year old a really violent game.children are like sponges they absorb what they see, causing them to put it into actions.","Are Video Games really bad for people? 2\nThis debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like \"Hate\". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.","Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.\nlol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that \"You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people.\" This argument helps to support my claim of \"violent video games do not contribute to violence\" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term \"blame\" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!","Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.\nI'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, \"If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got.\"OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these \"killing sessions.\" My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as \"point shooting.\" Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:\"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\"and this quote: \"Children’s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses.\"We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the \"bystander\" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. \"In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4).\" 2. Let's get to the real question, \"What causes the effect?\" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as \"diffusion of responsibility.\" To clarify my source continues, \"One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases.\"We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show \"significance.\" Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... \"Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\"For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, \"Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls,\" Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...","Open Challenge - 4 Topics\n<Psychology> Let’s say your 6 year old kid said he would beat you up if you did not pull over and buy him ice cream, the parents would not stop, why? Because, even with the child’s aggression, the parent know that there will be no backup to his claims. Now if you replaced the 6 year old child with a pro wrestler, then you may be more inclined to pull your car over. If you cannot realistically threaten others, than acting aggressive will not help. Playing Grand Theft Auto all day may lead to you wanting to crash more digital cars, or beat up more fantasy people(In the near future), the advisability of your agression will not change. We can connect this to a non-human example, which is always helpful when looking into psychology because if an idea only works on humans, than it is more likely that the idea does not have interpretation. Let us take a moose, or 3 straight hours you show the moose a video of moose fighting. Afterwards your moose will not rush out to find a rival to duel, why? The reason, is that the moose chances of victory do not increase, so why should it’s actions change? Obviously the topic at hand is much more complex, but it gives us a foothold on why violent video games should not have a lasting impact on the aggression of humans. Humans do not play games because the game is violent, instead they play the game for the challenge. Following that idea, it is more logical to assume that changing the difficulty of the game would have a much greater effect that changing the level of violence. <Difficulty> Andrew K. Przybylski of Rochester University released a report on the supposed link between violent video games and aggression. His report consisted of a series of 7 studies, I will explain them here(1). In study one Przybylsk let 99 players play two different games. One game was non-violent, and had relatively easy controls. The other game was violent, and had significantly more complex controls. Przybylsk and his team then asked each participant to rank 3 things, level of violence of the game, difficulty the participant had with the controls, and the aggression afterwards. As expected, difficulty with controls had a much stronger correlation with aggression than violence. In study two, two versions of the game Half-Life two were created. One was violent the other was not, both games had the same atmosphere and difficulty. When testing the participants, frustration with the difficulty of the level was a much better indicator of aggression that the violence of the game. Study three is similar to study two, but the difficulty of the controls of the game was changed. The game in question is tetris, a non-violent game, those participants with more difficult controls were more likely to have aggressive compulsions. Study four changed a few variable over study three, but reached the same conclusion. Competence was inversely proportional to aggression In study five 112 participants were given one of two complex games, one that was violent, the other was non-violent. Half the participants were given 10 minutes of practice time. As expected considering the results of the previous studies, those participants without practice time showed more violent tendencies, the violence of the game showed no correlation. Study six asked participants to dunk their arm in ice cold water, then play tetris. The game was set at various difficulties. The patients were then asked the current participant how long the next participant should put their arm into the water. The harder the game’s difficulty, the longer the current patient suggested the next subject put their hand in the water. In study 7 the researchers interviewed gamers on the games they play, and their aggressive tendencies. The difficulty of the game was a held a stronger correlation to aggression that the rating of the game. In conclusion, it is evident that, instead of the violence of the video game, the difficulty of the game is a much better indicator of the aggression of the player. Losing the game tends to provoke rage, it does not matter the violence of the game. <Empathy> In a study lead by Dr. Gregor Szycik(2), the researchers lead a study on the long term effects of video games on humans. This is important, as a vast majorities of other studies on this topic focused on short term effects. A group of gamers who played first person shooter for a minimum of two hours a day were compared to a group of people with no experience of violent video games. Each gamer refrained from playing the game for 3 hours, though most waited longer. The participants were asked a series of physiological questions, and were then showed pictures that were meant to provoke an emotional response. MRI scans were conducted on the brain during this time. The questionnaire reported no difference in aggression and empathy in gamers to non-gamers, and that finding was backed up by brain scans <Time> A study lead by Oxford University(3) found that the time playing video games lead to lower academic scores for children, but that change was incredibly minor. The study found that students who played video games generally had lower grades, the important thing, is that they found no correlation between the rating of the game. This is important, as it suggests that addiction to game would have a negative social effect while violence would have a negligible social effect. If you look at a more extreme case, you can look at Adam Lanza. He is, of course, the infamous Sandy Hook shooter, and was obviously mentally unstable. Many people were ready for the FBI to release document about how violent video games had effected Adam’s mental state, but they got a disappointing surprise. The game that effected Adam the most, was not violent, it was “Dance Dance Revolution”, a single player arcade game. Adam put an excessive amount of time into the game, suggesting that his disconnect from society was the real reason for his deteriorating mental state. This disconnect is important, as the Oxford study found that multiplayer games may increase a child’s ability to be social. <Third Variable> Previous studies on violence in video games have been criticized for not recording the atmosphere of the game. Controls, difficulty, and competition have all been shown to affect aggression, yet many studies neglect this. The importance of the studies I have linked is that many include a third variable, whether it be time or difficulty. This is extremely important, as the studies have found a much strong correlation with that third variable. Many first person shooters are mechanically hard and competitive, and that may be the real reason that some study have found a correlation between videogames and violence. In many of these studies, this correlation has been minimal enough that in no way would it constitute a negative social outcome. <Conclusion> In conclusion, it is evident that violent video games do not have an affect on society that can be deemed to be negative. The ever expanding library of rage quit videos on youtube also prove my point. The common denominator of the aggression in all of these videos is not violence of the video games, it is losing. It is clearly evident that addiction to game has a greater negative effect of society over violent video games. Correlation does not equal causation, and it is evident that any correlation that may be found would be the result of not examining every factor of the games being studied. Being competitive, or being a bit impatient cannot possibly be considered a negative social outcome. The average COD gamer is not going out punching people, or being overly aggressive because of the game.In fact, the most popular violent video games are multiplayer, so social interaction may be increasing. Many may consider online conversation “not real”, and it is obvious that too much time online can have a negative effect, but video games can build important social bonds for many people, myself included. In no way is society as a whole being affected by this, crime rates have continued to drop(4), as video game sales have continued to rise. I may be pushing it to say that the drop in juvenile crime may be the result of videogames, in fact I highly doubt it. But it is only logical to assume that the relatively cheap distractions may have played a role in that decrease. If violent video games did have a negative impact on society, than the 70 million copies of GTA V that were sold in stores should have resulted in an increase in crime. But never, in all my time of playing violent video games, have I ever had the urge to blow up a car; many people can share that sentiment. <Sources> 1.http://selfdeterminationtheory.org... 2.https://blog.frontiersin.org... 3.http://www.ox.ac.uk... 4.https://upload.wikimedia.org...","violent video games do NOT breed violence\nI have researched this topic thoroughly and I wish to definitively state that violent video games do not breed violence starting with the fact the violent video games likely draw a violent crowd not create one.","Video Games\nI know that most video game players are good people who wouldn't actually hurt anyone else and I know that video games just games. Also all my cousins and most of my friends play video games and they're all good people. Video games and tv shows or movies that have lots of violence desensitize people to violence. When they see pictures of actual dead people on the news they're less likely to be grossed out or saddened by it. That doesn't mean people who play video games don't have emotions or are psychopaths or that they never get saddened by images of actual dead people but they are less likely to. Also we shouldn't premodern violence. Violence is only good for self defense. BTW I also play slender man. It's pretty scary and it's really fun but it's not that bloody or violent.","Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes\nIncreasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.","violent video games\ni think playing violent video games can cause brain damage and they do nat spend time there family.they also can start fight in school","Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.\nThere is possibly some things I didn't bother to clarify enough in my arguments. Particularly how desensitization caused by violent video games leads to an increase in violence outside of a military setting. I'll get to that and we should be crystal clear after that. Another thing I'll be hitting on is a logical fallacy my opponent has been using, which is basically her entire argument. AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT My opponents logical fallacy is called affirming a disjunct. Affirming a disjunct would look like this: Either A or B since A it's not B. Or if I wanted to write a more easy to understand example, here it is: Me or Debatability are debating. Since Debatability is debating it must mean I'm not. Anyway I'm not the best at writing examples, so if you're confused read the link that I'm using as a citation to prove my opponent's logical fallacy. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Here is how my opponent has used this logical fallacy. \"A common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment \" This doesn't prove that violent video games don't significantly contribute to real world violence. It merely shows that competition contributes significantly to real world violence. Both desensitization and competition can contribute significantly to real world violence. This isn't one of those either or situations. Competition is a huge reason for violence. If this weren't the case than evolution would have never occurred. VIOLENCE RATES The chart my opponent provided isn't really well cited. I can't pull up what those numbers even mean is it a chart showing international or national video games sales and crime? It doesn't even matter. Violent video games can contribute significantly to real world violence, while the crime rate decreases. The chart really just boils down to correlation stats as opposed to causation stats. VIDEO GAME'S EFFECTS \"Studies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes \"If you give them video games, they\"ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we\"d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There\"s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other\"\" The article referenced no such studies of inmates. The quote my opponent grabbed was on cited from an author of a cracked. com article. It's just a funny story a former prison guard was recounting. The article did cite a few articles that showed some positive effects of violent video games, but none showed a decrease in aggression or violence as a result of playing them. NOT BORN TO KILL \"Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor. \" You miss the point these are training exercises and according to the research you've provided aggression is only increased for a short period after the competitive endeavor. The competition on the shooting range is always going to be there regardless of whether the target is shaped like a human or like a dart board with the red circle in the middle. According to my opponents own research showing that aggression only increases for a short period of time after competition, we must assume something else is going on there. I say and the research suggests it's desensitization. It's easier to shoot a real person when you've simulated the event 100s of times and have gotten rid of that natural repulsion of doing so. DESENSITIZE ME My opponent brings up a study that. Contradicts mine and suggests that very little if any desensitization occurs. Let's examine this study closer. \"The study involved 122 male and female undergraduate students who fell into two categories: 45 participants who had some video game experience within the last six months and 77 students who reported no video game exposure. \" . http://www.newswise.com... The students were asked this question on a survey. (Probably more, but relevant to this debate) 1. Have you played a video game within the last 6 months? So how many of these students only played 1 game the previous 6 months? How many had had less than 3 total hours of videogaming those 6 months? How many of the non videogames players were exposed to a ton of other forms of violent media, such as slasher flicks? These types of studies need to have participants chosen more carefully. The study I showed uses people that play videogames a lot vs people that play rarely or if at all. It's a far better indicator of the effects of violent videogames. The study I've shown indicates that a lot of exposure to violent videogames makes it more likely that somebody will pull the trigger. \"2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games. \" The study I've shown though small indicates that exposure to a lot of videogames caused participants to be less concerned about the well being of their opponents. My opponents studies have shown that aggression is only temporarily increased due to exposure of competitive videogames. The study I linked to shows an increased willingness to pull the trigger. So something other than the temporary increase of aggression must be considered. That something is desensitization, as indicated by the decreased response to violent imagery. DR. BRUCE \" So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence. \" What desensitization does isn't necessarily cause people who aren't predisposed to violence to become violent. It actually contributes significantly to a culture of violence. Psychopaths are about 1% of the population and have a lack of concern for other individuals. They also make up over 30% of the prison population. . http://news.uchicago.edu... The 1% number is on the conservative end as well. Some psychologists have them at 4% of the population. These people will slice your throat and not feel an ounce of guilt about it the next day. Most of them probably won't do that, but they still account for a disproportionate amount if the violent crime taking place in the United States. Common sense tells you that with an increase in apathy about violence going on right in front of your face that more people inclined to commit violent acts will feel free to do so. We have what's called the bystander effect that occurs all the time and we keep seeing. New cases of it on television all the time. . http://m.psychologytoday.com... Bystander effect is actually where witnesses to a violent crime, do nothing to stop it or alert authorities to the situation. Sure some of this is caused by fear, but a large amount is caused by apathy. People just aren't bothered watching a man knock a woman's teeth out and take her purse. Psychopaths now feel safe committing violent acts in front of others due to the bystander effect. Another violent trend taking place across the United States is called \"The Knockout Game\". This is where a group of kids go around punching people as hard as they can in hopes of knocking them out. The targets are usually little old ladies or other defenseless people. . http://newyork.cbslocal.com... All it takes is one psychopath leading a bunch of desensitized teens just wanting to fit in, and committing the act of violence in front of a mixed crowd of desensitized and scared people. Half scared to step in the other half just isn't bothered by it. Desensitization creates a culture of violence. It makes people inclined to violence more likely to be violent and contributes by making violence less repulsive and by extension more acceptable. \"The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence. \" Those things mentioned are certainly factors, but just as important a those things is the culture of violence caused by desensitization. I've already proven that violent simulations (aka videogames) contribute to more violence on the part of the government and. If we look at the numbers to see how many deaths the government participates in, we can see that is a huge number. I've also shown that the desensitization caused by violent video games contributes significantly in direct and indirect ways.","Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens\nhmmm this debate would be quite intriguing ;)As far as I know, not every kids (:o 9-35) like video games, not every video gamers like violent games, and not every violent gamers become psycho-path killers. In fact hardly any of them become psycho-path killers. http://videogames.procon.org... In chart no.6, we can tell 15.5% of gamers had bought M rated video games in 2008, so you are saying that 15.5% of 68.8% of American households (chart no.1) are psychopath-killers. Anyways, gl hf and I look forward for a good debate!! =)"],"string":"[\n \"Can video games be healthy\\nMy final argument is as follows:- Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Also according to Dmitri A. Christakis of the Seattle Children\\\"s Research Institute, those who watch a lot of simulated violence, such as those in video games, can become immune to it, more inclined to act violently themselves, and are less likely to behave emphatically. The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\\\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. The American Psychological Association (APA) also concluded that there is a \\\"consistent correlation\\\" between violent game use and aggression, but finds insufficient evidence to link violent video play to criminal violence. An open letter by a number of media scholars, psychologists and criminologists, however, find APA\\\"s study and conclusion to be misleading and alarmist. On the other hand, many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime which coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. On the other hand, a study by researchers at the North Carolina State University, New York and the University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology points out that gamers usually do not replace their offline social lives with online game playing, but rather it expands them. In fact, among gamers, being a loner is not the norm. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. On the other hand, a University of Buffalo study suggests that violence and bad behavior played in the virtual world may be contributing to better behavior in the real world. Gamers who play violent games may feel guilty about their behavior in the virtual world and this may make them be more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University\\\"s Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\\\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children\\\"s attention issues \\\" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\\\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids\\\" addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal. According to Catherine Steiner-Adair, a Harvard-affiliated psychologist and author of the best-selling book \\\"The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationship in the Digital Age\\\", if kids are allowed to play \\\"Candy Crush\\\" on the way to school, the trip will be quiet, but it\\\"s not what kids need. \\\"They need time to daydream, deal with anxieties, process their thoughts and share them with parents, who can provide reassurance.\\\" I accordace to the latest comment, check the previous argument, it has links to websites OK, moving on here are a few links for you: 1. http://healthresearchfunding.org... 2. greengarageblog.org/10-primary-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games 3. https://my.vanderbilt.edu... 4. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/.../Pros-and-cons-of-playing-video-games.html 5. nlcatp.org/5-major-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games/ 6. 7. https://prezi.com... 8. 9. https://prezi.com... 10. 11. 12. https://prezi.com... 13. https://archive.org... 14. http://www.barnegatschools.com... 15. http://sharpbrains.com... 16. www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame156-1002/pressrel51.asp 17. www.happychild.com.au/articles/violence-in-video-games-what-parents-need-to-know 18. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 19. money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/technology/video-game-violence/ 20. www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/ 21. www.healthline.com \\\" Healthline News 22. www.independent.co.uk \\\" News \\\" Science 23. www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075 24. time.com/4000220/violent-video-games/ 25. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 26. news.sky.com/.../study-violent-video-games-lead-to-aggression 27. 28. www.theonion.com/.../case-and-against-letting-children-play-video-... 29. gamerant.com/video-game-violence-survey/ 30. studymoose.com/do-violent-video-games-cause-bad-behavior-essay\",\n \"Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior\\nHello, 16kadams! I will argue for the case that violent video games do not cause increased aggressive behavior. The burden of proof is on pro; pro is arguing for the contention. == 1. The supposed link is unclear == P1. If there is a clear link between violent video games and violence, pro meets his burden of proof. P2. There is no clear link between violent video games and violence. C. Pro does not meet his burden of proof. Justification for Premise 2: While there are some studies which supposedly demonstrate a link between violence and violent video games, some recent studies suggest that this is not the case: real life environments are different than experimental environments in terms of how they influence people. Research has shown that sometimes violent media correlates with more violence; however, during other time periods, the influence inverts. This shows that the relation between the two is most likely correlation, and not causation. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) == 2. Violence has been going down, despite the rising popularity of video games == P1. If video games cause violence, then increased popularity of violent video games would increase violence. P2. Violence is decreasing, yet the popularity of violent video games is increasing. C. Video games do not cause violence. Justification for premise 2: despite the fact that the popularity of video games increased between 1990 and 2010, the crime rates actually dropped. (https://commons.wikimedia.org...)(http://www.bjs.gov...) This shows that there is a lack of correlation between the popularity of violent video games and crime rates. By the way, for my case to work, the popularity of video games should have increased over the past years; this is indeed demonstrated by the fact that the video game industry grows by around 16.7% annually. (http://www.forbes.com...)\",\n \"violent video games\\nwell no B/c some kids know how to control them self like no id would start killing people b/c of one game and like for example Gta V no kid would start robbing cars and they could have family time b/c for example I play with y cousin black ops 2 and we still have time together\",\n \"Video Games cause violence\\nThe resolution: \\\"Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about\\\"In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games. -------------------------A. Definitions and Clarifications1A - InformationThough my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution. \\\"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )\\\"Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.1B - Assumption about the resolution\\\"Video games\\\" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include \\\"all\\\" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that \\\"Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence\\\", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.1C - The Definition of ViolenceViolence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person. vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns] noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. B. ArgumentsB1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisomeMost especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as \\\"big enough to worry about\\\". For that reason, I dismiss the \\\"big enough to worry about\\\" part of pro's resolution. In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be \\\"violent\\\" as a result of video gaming. B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolutionMy opponent has presented me with the resolution that:\\\"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc. \\\"Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance. Comparison:\\\"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it\\\"This concept can be applied to video games. B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youthsYouth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence. The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people. The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully \\\"in favour of video games\\\", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause. --References--[1] - (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)[2] - (. http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games[3] - (. http://www.apa.org...)\",\n \"Violent video games should NOT be banned\\nI think video games should be banned because there are much more better things to do that are more healthy for you. Not only do they take little physical movement but they also use electricity. Kids should be involved with a sport or school. But a pro to video games is the wii. Some games on it are actually good exercise for you. Try the \\\" WiiFit\\\" It all depends if video games are getting in the way of better things that you can do. Violent video games are not just violent on the screen-the violence can often be seen in the players actions afterwards. Popular war-based games such as Call of Duty and World of Warcraft can make the player lose respect for military and past wars. They also lose respect for the sanctity of life by underestimating the seriousness in killing or injuring another being.\",\n \"should vilent video games be banned\\nIt is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. \\\"In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. \\\" [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: \\\"It's clear that the ‘big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy. \\\" [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports. .. \\\"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. \\\" [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it. .. Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop \\\" from the repetition of actions \\\", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth \\\"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. \\\" Posner adds, \\\"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. \\\" [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before. .. .this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. \\\"The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. \\\" [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] \\\"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. \\\" [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. . http://www.suite101.com... 5. . http://www.pbs.org... 6. . http://videogames.procon.org...\",\n \"is video games bad for kids\\nThe American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a July 26, 2000 \\\"Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children\\\" available at www.aap.org: \\\"Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music.\\\" July 26, 2000- American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Pediatrics American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) American Psychological Association Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, wrote in a 2009 article \\\"FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence,\\\" available on psychology.iastate.edu: \\\"The results, overall, have been fairly consistent across types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and across visual media type (television, films, video games). There is a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Exposing children and adolescents (or 'youth') to violent visual media increases the likelihood that they will engage in physical aggression against another person. By 'physical aggression' we mean behavior that is intended to harm another person physically, such as hitting with a fist or some object. A single brief exposure to violent media can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Repeated exposure leads to general increases in aggressiveness over time. This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal.\\\" 2009- Craig Anderson, PhD David Greenfield, PhD, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said in a Sep. 20, 2013 panel discussion titled \\\"Growing Up GTA\\\" available at huffingtonpost.com: \\\"My opinion on video game violence, which has a very powerful reward system wired into it, is that continued exposure desensitizes people to the experience of violence. But the other big issue, along with the reward structure, is that it teaches them a skill set that they might not otherwise develop, especially the first person shooter games. I have a real problem with giving people, in the name of entertainment, a technology that desensitizes violence, and then teaches you how to commit violence more accurately \\\" and then elevating people's levels of dopamine\\\" [T]hose studies have been absolutely supported. When you put people on a PET scanner or an functional MRI, their brain lights up like a Christmas tree when they're doing these games, especially when they hit the reward points that are designed by the gamers to\\\" keep people gaming because that's how these games make their money. Nothing is engaged in at the levels that I see gaming at, as a form of entertainment or dopamine elevation, unless it's a narcotic like cocaine for instance. How could you be exposed to something this toxic and have it not affect you?\\\" Sep. 20, 2013- David N. Greenfield, PhD Leland Yee, PhD, State Senator (D-CA) wrote in a June 22, 2009 amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court for Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger: \\\"The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior. This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth... Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published... These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence.\\\" June 22, 2009- Leland Yee, PhD Brad Bushman, PhD, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, stated the following in a Feb. 18, 2013 article titled \\\"Why Do People Deny Violent Media Effects?\\\" available at psychologytoday.com \\\"People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don\\\"t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that\\\"s not true. We haven\\\"t 'proven' video games directly cause violence because it can\\\"t be proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that doesn\\\"t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is certainly correlated with violence \\\" just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the world. These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work.\\\" Feb. 18, 2013- Brad J. Bushman, PhD Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA), wrote in an article titled \\\"Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?\\\" on www.pbs.org (accessed Oct. 6, 2014): \\\"Parents do know that children learn by observing, imitating what they observe, and acting on the world around them. According to child psychologist Michael Rich, children develop what psychologists call 'behavioral scripts.' They interpret their experiences and respond to others using those scripts. One can easily see how repeated exposure to violent behavioral scripts can lead to increased feelings of hostility, expectation that others will behave aggressively, desensitization to the pain of others, and an increased likelihood of interacting and responding to others with violence. Violent video games are an ideal environment in which to learn violence. Violent video games: Place the player in the role of th\",\n \"Violent Video Games\\nAlthough I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called \\\"Do Video Games Make Teens Violent\\\" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.\",\n \"Ban the sale of violent video games\\nhttp://www.neisd.net... These are the rules that go with an LD topic such as this p,ease provide by them and no plagiarizing. Please also share sources. I will do so likewise. Let's begin! -Here is what some of the people out there have to say: \\\"Violent video games are teaching are kids to be violent. It is a known fact that we learn by repetition. By allowing children to play violent video games it starts to desensitize them at an early age to the effects of violence. These games were originally designed for military training to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy.\\\" -\\\"Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,\\\"Oh, my son promised to never act like that,\\\" or,\\\"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun\\\". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun. Violent video games like MWF3 or Call of Duty or Assassins Creed are insults to military men. They're at war, fighting for our country, and you've got your butt on a couch, laughing at people who are getting shot on a video game. This is a serious offense to soldiers. And what if you played these games and someone you love is in the military. Would they feel offended. Go on. Ask yourself. They are insulting, bad for children, and brutal.\\\" -\\\"Those Who voted 'No' are delusional fools. It's plainly obvious, video games make people of all ages agitated and aggressive. -I've seen it in my nephews and niece and there are countless studies available at your finger tips. The vast majority of respondents to this article are delusional people with absolutely no sense of what's going on. Now that is a cold hard fact and highly unfortunate that there are so many video game addicts.\\\" -\\\"Yes violent video games should be banned!! Police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For example a 8 year old boy oblivious to the real life fact that if you shot someone in real life they would die and not come back, took out a gun and shot is grandmother. His grandmother did die and did not come back. He is now facing life in prison after juvenile hall of course for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games pump things into children's heads so bad these days they have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life.\\\" -Now let's talk some philosophy. -Posted by Mike LaBossiere on June 27, 2011 Leave a comment (21)Go to comments I have been using my budget-cut based summer break from teaching to do various home improvements. The point of mentioning this is that I have been alternating between baking in the Florida sun and being exposed to \\\"second hand paint fumes\\\" (as opposed to directly huffing the stuff) as such, my writing might be a bit off. I have checked for any obvious weirdness (well, weirdness beyond the usual sort), but I apologize in advance for any heat/paint induced lapses in logic. I blame the flying frogs that seem to be infesting my house now. In any case, down to business. -The supreme court recently ruled that California\\\"s law banning the sale of video games to minors that \\\"depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.\\\" The ruling was, of course, based on the first amendment. -Being both a gamer and an ethicist, I have thought (and written) a fair amount about the banning video games. On the one hand, a very reasonable case can be made for placing age based restrictions on video games. While studies of the impact of virtual violence on children are hardly conclusive, it seems reasonable to accept that exposure to virtual violence can have an impact on how the child thinks. As Aristotle has argued, people become habituated by what they do. Children are, of course, even more likely to be influenced. They are more receptive than adults and tend to lack the cognitive resources that adults are supposed to possess. As such, it seems reasonable to keep young children away from violence-even the virtual sort. -On the other hand, there are reasonable grounds for rejecting such bans. First, there are reasons for doubting that such games have a significant impact on children. The psychological studies are open to question and, of course, humans seem to be naturally prone to violence ( the stock \\\"we like violent games because we are violent, we are not violent because of the games\\\" argument). When I was a kid, long before violent video games, we spent a lot of time playing war. While the effects were not very special (cap guns), we certainly did act out killing each other. When violent video games came along, they simply allowed me to do what I had done as a kid (play at killing) only with ever better graphics and effects). As such, banning violent video games to protect children from the influence of violence seems like something that simply will not work, thus making such a law unnecessary. -Second, there is the matter of freedom of expression and consumption. While minors do have a reduced right of freedom of consumption (they cannot but alcohol, tobacco, guns or porn), imposing on their freedom only seems justified when it protects them from a significant harm in cases in which they lack the judgment to (in theory at least) make an informed choice. Even if violent video games have a harmful impact, it can be contended that the harm is not on par with that of adult vices such as alcohol or tobacco but rather on par with junk food. So, just as it is sensible to think that children should not eat junk food, yet also think there should not be laws banning children from buying candy bards, it seems sensible to think that although young kids should not buy violent video games, there should not be laws against doing so. -Third, there is the matter of what is fit for the state to control and what is fit for parents to control. There are, obviously enough, matters that should be handled by the state and those that should remain a matter of parental choice. Alcohol, guns and tobacco are so dangerous that it seems reasonable that the state has a interest in keeping children away from these things by force of law. There is also a category of things were the state should aid parents in making choices, such as diet and exercise, but where the state should not intervene except in extreme cases. As noted above, I am inclined to put violent video games in the category of junk food. As such, parents should be informed about what the games contain (which is already done by the rating system) and the choice of whether or not their children play the games or not should be up to them. Naturally, children who lack parents or whose parents are dangerously incompetent will fall under the domain of the state, but these would be relatively rare cases.\\\" http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com... -BY ERIK BRUDVIGViolent media has existed as long as human history and the debate over how or when to control it is as hotly contested as ever. With the trend towards greater realism and graphic content that began in the 90's, videogames have found themselves the focal point du jour. But how much of an impact have these violent videogames had? We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts. -Selling an Image Anybody who has been playing games for the past five years must surely have noticed the recent and accelerating trend towards \\\"thugsploitation\\\" games. The success of Grand Theft Auto III assured us all that we'd be seeing a steady stream of imitators hoping for their own piece of the pie. Over the top violence, sexual themes, and drug references have become commonplace in videogames and certainly take more than their fair share of the mainstream press's time. But how far has this \\\"even negative press is good press\\\" philosophy taken these games? Eighty-five percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated \\\"E\\\" for Everyone, \\\"T\\\" for Teen, or \\\"E10+\\\" for Everyone 10+. (Entertainment Software Association) Additionally, only one (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) of the top 10 grossing games for 2005 was rated \\\"M\\\" for Mature. That's not to say that these top selling games are suitable for all ages. Seven of the top ten games of 2005 have some form of violence listed as a descriptor by the ESRB, but it certainly speaks volumes about what the impact of the steady stream of Mature games is on the consumer side. Nintendo, a company always concerned with the content of games appearing on its systems, may be on to something more than just being \\\"kiddy.\\\" Despite the relatively small market share these Mature games have garnered, it hasn't stopped our lawmakers from latching on to them and turning them into a political focal point. -Public Policy With all of the uproar surrounding the Columbine shootings and other similar tragedies, as well as the Hot Coffee controversy, lawmakers have been quick to propose legislation that would limit the access of violent material to minors. Violent game laws have been proposed or considered in Kansas, Utah, Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Illinois, California, Germany, and recently, the U.S. Senate. So far, none of these proposals have become a reality at your local videogame store. -read more @ http://www.ign.com...\",\n \"Violent videogames/movies/books/music do not lead to violent behavior.\\nNumerous studies have been done and it has been found that after playing violent video games, listening to violent music and watching violent movies the children involved have become more violent. The books may be the tools they used to find ideas on how to release their violent instincts. (I personally feel books do not do so) Also, you argued that violent people are attracted to violent forms of entertainment. There was a study on this and it was found that the most violent were worst affected by the violent entertainment. This means that the violent become even more violent. So you are right that the violent people are attracted to the violent forms of entertainment but this means they still become more violent.\",\n \"Video Games Cause Violence\\nVideo Games DO cause violence. The violent nature of our generations of current games brainwash peoples minds into thinking it's, \\\"Just a game.\\\" Or, \\\"It's not bad.\\\" Little do they know it makes them into killers.\",\n \"violent video games\\nsome kids around my neighborhood one day i was out side and this kid and brother were talk about gta and they were going that they were going to beat up this with a pocket knife and and they jump the kid and i had to help the kid how was getting beat up i look at him and he had a stab wound\",\n \"should children play mature rated video games\\nI think that children should not play mature video games because many, children can get influenced by the stuff in the game especially at a young age. Now that games are becoming more and more violent this issue becomes even more dangerous with the sudden interest of children in mature rated games. I have been told on many axons that the games was mature rated but i understand the things that go on in the games i play. However there are many other children that don't understand what happens in these games. The worst part about this situation is that games graphics are now being improved and if it a gory game, that gets upped too. So, main point is that game sellers should stop children under the age of 12 to buy mature rated games.\",\n \"Parents are responsible for raising their kids correctly.\\nFor one, the parents do not have to buy the game. and when they do sometime they don't look at the ratings of them games.they could accidentally end up buying a 5 year old a really violent game.children are like sponges they absorb what they see, causing them to put it into actions.\",\n \"Are Video Games really bad for people? 2\\nThis debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like \\\"Hate\\\". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.\",\n \"Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.\\nlol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that \\\"You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people.\\\" This argument helps to support my claim of \\\"violent video games do not contribute to violence\\\" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term \\\"blame\\\" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!\",\n \"Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.\\nI'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, \\\"If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got.\\\"OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these \\\"killing sessions.\\\" My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as \\\"point shooting.\\\" Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:\\\"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\\\"and this quote: \\\"Children’s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses.\\\"We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the \\\"bystander\\\" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. \\\"In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4).\\\" 2. Let's get to the real question, \\\"What causes the effect?\\\" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as \\\"diffusion of responsibility.\\\" To clarify my source continues, \\\"One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases.\\\"We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show \\\"significance.\\\" Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... \\\"Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\\\"For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, \\\"Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls,\\\" Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...\",\n \"Open Challenge - 4 Topics\\n<Psychology> Let’s say your 6 year old kid said he would beat you up if you did not pull over and buy him ice cream, the parents would not stop, why? Because, even with the child’s aggression, the parent know that there will be no backup to his claims. Now if you replaced the 6 year old child with a pro wrestler, then you may be more inclined to pull your car over. If you cannot realistically threaten others, than acting aggressive will not help. Playing Grand Theft Auto all day may lead to you wanting to crash more digital cars, or beat up more fantasy people(In the near future), the advisability of your agression will not change. We can connect this to a non-human example, which is always helpful when looking into psychology because if an idea only works on humans, than it is more likely that the idea does not have interpretation. Let us take a moose, or 3 straight hours you show the moose a video of moose fighting. Afterwards your moose will not rush out to find a rival to duel, why? The reason, is that the moose chances of victory do not increase, so why should it’s actions change? Obviously the topic at hand is much more complex, but it gives us a foothold on why violent video games should not have a lasting impact on the aggression of humans. Humans do not play games because the game is violent, instead they play the game for the challenge. Following that idea, it is more logical to assume that changing the difficulty of the game would have a much greater effect that changing the level of violence. <Difficulty> Andrew K. Przybylski of Rochester University released a report on the supposed link between violent video games and aggression. His report consisted of a series of 7 studies, I will explain them here(1). In study one Przybylsk let 99 players play two different games. One game was non-violent, and had relatively easy controls. The other game was violent, and had significantly more complex controls. Przybylsk and his team then asked each participant to rank 3 things, level of violence of the game, difficulty the participant had with the controls, and the aggression afterwards. As expected, difficulty with controls had a much stronger correlation with aggression than violence. In study two, two versions of the game Half-Life two were created. One was violent the other was not, both games had the same atmosphere and difficulty. When testing the participants, frustration with the difficulty of the level was a much better indicator of aggression that the violence of the game. Study three is similar to study two, but the difficulty of the controls of the game was changed. The game in question is tetris, a non-violent game, those participants with more difficult controls were more likely to have aggressive compulsions. Study four changed a few variable over study three, but reached the same conclusion. Competence was inversely proportional to aggression In study five 112 participants were given one of two complex games, one that was violent, the other was non-violent. Half the participants were given 10 minutes of practice time. As expected considering the results of the previous studies, those participants without practice time showed more violent tendencies, the violence of the game showed no correlation. Study six asked participants to dunk their arm in ice cold water, then play tetris. The game was set at various difficulties. The patients were then asked the current participant how long the next participant should put their arm into the water. The harder the game’s difficulty, the longer the current patient suggested the next subject put their hand in the water. In study 7 the researchers interviewed gamers on the games they play, and their aggressive tendencies. The difficulty of the game was a held a stronger correlation to aggression that the rating of the game. In conclusion, it is evident that, instead of the violence of the video game, the difficulty of the game is a much better indicator of the aggression of the player. Losing the game tends to provoke rage, it does not matter the violence of the game. <Empathy> In a study lead by Dr. Gregor Szycik(2), the researchers lead a study on the long term effects of video games on humans. This is important, as a vast majorities of other studies on this topic focused on short term effects. A group of gamers who played first person shooter for a minimum of two hours a day were compared to a group of people with no experience of violent video games. Each gamer refrained from playing the game for 3 hours, though most waited longer. The participants were asked a series of physiological questions, and were then showed pictures that were meant to provoke an emotional response. MRI scans were conducted on the brain during this time. The questionnaire reported no difference in aggression and empathy in gamers to non-gamers, and that finding was backed up by brain scans <Time> A study lead by Oxford University(3) found that the time playing video games lead to lower academic scores for children, but that change was incredibly minor. The study found that students who played video games generally had lower grades, the important thing, is that they found no correlation between the rating of the game. This is important, as it suggests that addiction to game would have a negative social effect while violence would have a negligible social effect. If you look at a more extreme case, you can look at Adam Lanza. He is, of course, the infamous Sandy Hook shooter, and was obviously mentally unstable. Many people were ready for the FBI to release document about how violent video games had effected Adam’s mental state, but they got a disappointing surprise. The game that effected Adam the most, was not violent, it was “Dance Dance Revolution”, a single player arcade game. Adam put an excessive amount of time into the game, suggesting that his disconnect from society was the real reason for his deteriorating mental state. This disconnect is important, as the Oxford study found that multiplayer games may increase a child’s ability to be social. <Third Variable> Previous studies on violence in video games have been criticized for not recording the atmosphere of the game. Controls, difficulty, and competition have all been shown to affect aggression, yet many studies neglect this. The importance of the studies I have linked is that many include a third variable, whether it be time or difficulty. This is extremely important, as the studies have found a much strong correlation with that third variable. Many first person shooters are mechanically hard and competitive, and that may be the real reason that some study have found a correlation between videogames and violence. In many of these studies, this correlation has been minimal enough that in no way would it constitute a negative social outcome. <Conclusion> In conclusion, it is evident that violent video games do not have an affect on society that can be deemed to be negative. The ever expanding library of rage quit videos on youtube also prove my point. The common denominator of the aggression in all of these videos is not violence of the video games, it is losing. It is clearly evident that addiction to game has a greater negative effect of society over violent video games. Correlation does not equal causation, and it is evident that any correlation that may be found would be the result of not examining every factor of the games being studied. Being competitive, or being a bit impatient cannot possibly be considered a negative social outcome. The average COD gamer is not going out punching people, or being overly aggressive because of the game.In fact, the most popular violent video games are multiplayer, so social interaction may be increasing. Many may consider online conversation “not real”, and it is obvious that too much time online can have a negative effect, but video games can build important social bonds for many people, myself included. In no way is society as a whole being affected by this, crime rates have continued to drop(4), as video game sales have continued to rise. I may be pushing it to say that the drop in juvenile crime may be the result of videogames, in fact I highly doubt it. But it is only logical to assume that the relatively cheap distractions may have played a role in that decrease. If violent video games did have a negative impact on society, than the 70 million copies of GTA V that were sold in stores should have resulted in an increase in crime. But never, in all my time of playing violent video games, have I ever had the urge to blow up a car; many people can share that sentiment. <Sources> 1.http://selfdeterminationtheory.org... 2.https://blog.frontiersin.org... 3.http://www.ox.ac.uk... 4.https://upload.wikimedia.org...\",\n \"violent video games do NOT breed violence\\nI have researched this topic thoroughly and I wish to definitively state that violent video games do not breed violence starting with the fact the violent video games likely draw a violent crowd not create one.\",\n \"Video Games\\nI know that most video game players are good people who wouldn't actually hurt anyone else and I know that video games just games. Also all my cousins and most of my friends play video games and they're all good people. Video games and tv shows or movies that have lots of violence desensitize people to violence. When they see pictures of actual dead people on the news they're less likely to be grossed out or saddened by it. That doesn't mean people who play video games don't have emotions or are psychopaths or that they never get saddened by images of actual dead people but they are less likely to. Also we shouldn't premodern violence. Violence is only good for self defense. BTW I also play slender man. It's pretty scary and it's really fun but it's not that bloody or violent.\",\n \"Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes\\nIncreasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.\",\n \"violent video games\\ni think playing violent video games can cause brain damage and they do nat spend time there family.they also can start fight in school\",\n \"Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.\\nThere is possibly some things I didn't bother to clarify enough in my arguments. Particularly how desensitization caused by violent video games leads to an increase in violence outside of a military setting. I'll get to that and we should be crystal clear after that. Another thing I'll be hitting on is a logical fallacy my opponent has been using, which is basically her entire argument. AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT My opponents logical fallacy is called affirming a disjunct. Affirming a disjunct would look like this: Either A or B since A it's not B. Or if I wanted to write a more easy to understand example, here it is: Me or Debatability are debating. Since Debatability is debating it must mean I'm not. Anyway I'm not the best at writing examples, so if you're confused read the link that I'm using as a citation to prove my opponent's logical fallacy. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Here is how my opponent has used this logical fallacy. \\\"A common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment \\\" This doesn't prove that violent video games don't significantly contribute to real world violence. It merely shows that competition contributes significantly to real world violence. Both desensitization and competition can contribute significantly to real world violence. This isn't one of those either or situations. Competition is a huge reason for violence. If this weren't the case than evolution would have never occurred. VIOLENCE RATES The chart my opponent provided isn't really well cited. I can't pull up what those numbers even mean is it a chart showing international or national video games sales and crime? It doesn't even matter. Violent video games can contribute significantly to real world violence, while the crime rate decreases. The chart really just boils down to correlation stats as opposed to causation stats. VIDEO GAME'S EFFECTS \\\"Studies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes \\\"If you give them video games, they\\\"ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we\\\"d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There\\\"s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other\\\"\\\" The article referenced no such studies of inmates. The quote my opponent grabbed was on cited from an author of a cracked. com article. It's just a funny story a former prison guard was recounting. The article did cite a few articles that showed some positive effects of violent video games, but none showed a decrease in aggression or violence as a result of playing them. NOT BORN TO KILL \\\"Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor. \\\" You miss the point these are training exercises and according to the research you've provided aggression is only increased for a short period after the competitive endeavor. The competition on the shooting range is always going to be there regardless of whether the target is shaped like a human or like a dart board with the red circle in the middle. According to my opponents own research showing that aggression only increases for a short period of time after competition, we must assume something else is going on there. I say and the research suggests it's desensitization. It's easier to shoot a real person when you've simulated the event 100s of times and have gotten rid of that natural repulsion of doing so. DESENSITIZE ME My opponent brings up a study that. Contradicts mine and suggests that very little if any desensitization occurs. Let's examine this study closer. \\\"The study involved 122 male and female undergraduate students who fell into two categories: 45 participants who had some video game experience within the last six months and 77 students who reported no video game exposure. \\\" . http://www.newswise.com... The students were asked this question on a survey. (Probably more, but relevant to this debate) 1. Have you played a video game within the last 6 months? So how many of these students only played 1 game the previous 6 months? How many had had less than 3 total hours of videogaming those 6 months? How many of the non videogames players were exposed to a ton of other forms of violent media, such as slasher flicks? These types of studies need to have participants chosen more carefully. The study I showed uses people that play videogames a lot vs people that play rarely or if at all. It's a far better indicator of the effects of violent videogames. The study I've shown indicates that a lot of exposure to violent videogames makes it more likely that somebody will pull the trigger. \\\"2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games. \\\" The study I've shown though small indicates that exposure to a lot of videogames caused participants to be less concerned about the well being of their opponents. My opponents studies have shown that aggression is only temporarily increased due to exposure of competitive videogames. The study I linked to shows an increased willingness to pull the trigger. So something other than the temporary increase of aggression must be considered. That something is desensitization, as indicated by the decreased response to violent imagery. DR. BRUCE \\\" So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence. \\\" What desensitization does isn't necessarily cause people who aren't predisposed to violence to become violent. It actually contributes significantly to a culture of violence. Psychopaths are about 1% of the population and have a lack of concern for other individuals. They also make up over 30% of the prison population. . http://news.uchicago.edu... The 1% number is on the conservative end as well. Some psychologists have them at 4% of the population. These people will slice your throat and not feel an ounce of guilt about it the next day. Most of them probably won't do that, but they still account for a disproportionate amount if the violent crime taking place in the United States. Common sense tells you that with an increase in apathy about violence going on right in front of your face that more people inclined to commit violent acts will feel free to do so. We have what's called the bystander effect that occurs all the time and we keep seeing. New cases of it on television all the time. . http://m.psychologytoday.com... Bystander effect is actually where witnesses to a violent crime, do nothing to stop it or alert authorities to the situation. Sure some of this is caused by fear, but a large amount is caused by apathy. People just aren't bothered watching a man knock a woman's teeth out and take her purse. Psychopaths now feel safe committing violent acts in front of others due to the bystander effect. Another violent trend taking place across the United States is called \\\"The Knockout Game\\\". This is where a group of kids go around punching people as hard as they can in hopes of knocking them out. The targets are usually little old ladies or other defenseless people. . http://newyork.cbslocal.com... All it takes is one psychopath leading a bunch of desensitized teens just wanting to fit in, and committing the act of violence in front of a mixed crowd of desensitized and scared people. Half scared to step in the other half just isn't bothered by it. Desensitization creates a culture of violence. It makes people inclined to violence more likely to be violent and contributes by making violence less repulsive and by extension more acceptable. \\\"The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence. \\\" Those things mentioned are certainly factors, but just as important a those things is the culture of violence caused by desensitization. I've already proven that violent simulations (aka videogames) contribute to more violence on the part of the government and. If we look at the numbers to see how many deaths the government participates in, we can see that is a huge number. I've also shown that the desensitization caused by violent video games contributes significantly in direct and indirect ways.\",\n \"Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens\\nhmmm this debate would be quite intriguing ;)As far as I know, not every kids (:o 9-35) like video games, not every video gamers like violent games, and not every violent gamers become psycho-path killers. In fact hardly any of them become psycho-path killers. http://videogames.procon.org... In chart no.6, we can tell 15.5% of gamers had bought M rated video games in 2008, so you are saying that 15.5% of 68.8% of American households (chart no.1) are psychopath-killers. Anyways, gl hf and I look forward for a good debate!! =)\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Do games teach kids violence. We aren't even debating the existence of a causal link, only the fact that children learn violence from video games. I hereby provide quotes from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to settle this issue once and for all.\"Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy.\" [1]\"Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed.\"The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. At a Congressional public health summit in July 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was joined by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association in issuing an unprecedented joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Also in 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report on shootings in schools that stated that media violence is a risk factor. \"In 2003, a panel of media-violence experts convened by the National Institute of Mental Health, at the request of the US Surgeon General, published its comprehensive report on the effects of media violence on youth, which revealed media violence to be a significant causal factor in aggression and violence. Most recently, in 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its report on violent television programming and its effects on children and agreed with the Surgeon General that there is “strong evidence” that exposure to media violence can increase aggressive behavior in children.\" [2]\"As one leading group of researchers has stated, there should no longer be any controversy that a cause-and-effect relationship exists. More than 3500 reports, including 1000 research studies, have been made; <30 studies have found no relation. In fact, the connection between media violence and real-life aggression is nearly as strong as the connection between smoking and lung cancer. \"Given the complexities of performing social-science research, this finding is quite striking. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, and not everyone who views media violence will become aggressive. In addition, context is extremely important, as are mediating factors such as personality differences and parenting. \"Overall, an estimated 10% to 30% of violence in society can be attributed to the impact of media violence. Clearly, media violence is not the leading cause of violence in society, but it is a significant one.\" [3]Specific sources in comments :)","Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence First of all, as an observation, Juvenile can be defined as the following, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: \" physiologically immature or undeveloped\", :reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity\", and \"of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people.\" Therefore, since no exact age-bar ws given by the Pro, we can assume anyone is a juvenile if they match the description. This means adults who have mental disabilities, and people of all ages who bear these characteristics meeet the criteria of \"Juvenile.\" First - Kids/Juveniles who play violent video games are prone to Violent Videogames, as told by a journal Pediatrics in it's study in 2008. Anne Harding of CNN, who covered the study, reported on three groups in the study: \"In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure.\" CBSNews' 60 Minutes even went on about how a violent video game, Grand Theft Auto, led to a rampage by one of the kids who played it: \"And now, the game is at the center of a civil lawsuit involving the murders of three men in the small town of Fayette, Ala. They were gunned down by 18-year-old Devin Moore, who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry elaborate on these effects: \"Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: “immune” or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images.\" Therefore, the effects of violent video games are true, and do exist. Therefore, I contend that video Games do increase juvenile violence, as anyone, including children, who are deemed able to be a \"juvenile\" by definition, can be pushed into doing violence.","Video games encourage violent behavior Many people say that video games are making children violent people, (https://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu...), however, I completely disagree. I will be giving arguments in future rounds. I look forward to future arguments and seeing how this will come out.","Violent video games should NOT be banned First of all this is my first debate so go easy on me. Lets start, Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. Many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime whch coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University's Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children's attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids' addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal.","Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. \"It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point.\" [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... I would like to add to Con's statement that it has also been proven that the amount of school shootings since 1993 have significantly decreased[2]. Let's look at what game genres that we have present today cause aggression in teens. According to con's earlier source[1], the main genre of video games that cause \"the deterioration of emotional tolerance\" are violent first-person shooters, such as ones mentioned like \"Call of Duty\" and \"Medal of Honor: Frontline\". It's relation with school shootings has a vital flaw, though. Throughout the period of time (from 1993 - 2001), when school shootings were at their peak in this statistic[2], the more violent genres of first-person shooters that caused aggression in teens[1] did not exist. At this point, it must be safe to assume that it was not the violent video games that heavily influenced the school shootings. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...","Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and \"enlightened\" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young. 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:","Video games don't equal violence Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.First of all dont always believe in the news. the news could be unreliable and it doesnt even give two sides of a story this is the reason most people think violent games cause havok when it doesnt. Also if Video games are so bad and it teaches children violence how come China a place with twice more games than U.S and most of those games are shooting. How come the crimerate is very low.First of all the supreme court went against the act of banning violent video games. On April 20, 1999, two seniors kids walked into their high school carrying rifles, and they opened fire. They shot tons of people, killing 12 students and one teacher and the people were appalled. School shootings had happened before, but this was a violence shooting and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games. (Source- how stuff works) Since then, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. There was a 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old high- schooler who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in the First of all there has been many test so many test and these test has been redone over and over and it shows that school shootings are caused by mental illnesses. That is a big misunderstanding and video games can lead children into less physical fights. Adam Lanza was mentally illed so he saw a gun and he was unstabbled. Like said there is no link with games and the real world violence.If you said 97% is playing violent video games why isnt most of them causing crime and saying it is from video games? Video game sales increase during 1994-2010 and there has been a decrease in crime.","Video games do not cause children to commit crimes Thank you for your points and good luck. I believe that video games DO cause children children to commit crimes. Children get influenced by friends,family and society. But they also get influenced by television and video games. While some video games have educational content,many of the most popular games promote negative themes,such as: 1.The killing of people or animals. 2.The use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. 3.Criminal behaviour and disrespect of the law. 4.Sexual exploitation and abuse towards women. 5.Racial,sexual and gender stereotypes. 6.Foul language. All of these things can affect the child's brain. Yes it is just a video game,but MOST children take these negative themes out in real life. Studies show that children exposed to violence can become: 1. \"Numb\" to the horror of violence. 2. More aggressive. 3. depressed. Some children accept violence as a way to solve/handle problems. If children think that violence is a way to solve/handle things,they will cause crimes. If children think that the killing of people or animals are all right they will cause crimes. It affects the brain causing them to think its right and actually doing it in real life,thinking its fun. There has been heaps of real life incidents of children being violent in real life due to playing video games After students Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris opened fire in their Colorado high school in 1999 -- shooting 20 people and killing 13 -- Linda Sanders filed a lawsuit. Her husband was a teacher at Columbine and among the dead. The media revealed that Harris and Klebold played a lot of violent video games, including \"Wolfenstein 3D,\" \"Doom,\" and \"Mortal Kombat.\" Sanders named multiple video game publishers, including Sony and Nintendo, in the suit as well as Time Warner and Palm Pictures since the shooters had apparently watched \"The Basketball Diaries,\" in which a character uses a shotgun to kill students at his high school. So in conclusion, video games DO cause children to commit crimes. Thank you","Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games. Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' What the teens did represents one of the worst-case scenarios imagined by those who advocate for government to limit the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, such scenarios are very few and very far between. And Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision preventing the state of California from instituting a ban on the sale of such games to minors. The decision was steeped in legal precedent concerning free speech and censorship. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court’s decision in no way negates or devalues the decades of scientific research that have been conducted demonstrating that the consumption of violent media leads to increases in aggressive and anti-social behavior.\"","Video Games cause violence Brief Rebuttals to Brief pointsa) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that \"All video games cause violence\". In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!","IDK I think there are a bunch of already existing debates on this. They basically mention Columbine, soldiers with mental problems and some hormone released while playing games that makes people more aggressive social recluses. Countered by video games require intelligence, give kids a reason to hang out (most have at least two consoles) and how cases of extreme violence are rare but can be attributed to other factors that reportedly instigate violence as well. [[https://debatewise.org/debates/320-violent-video-games-music-and-films-are-resulting-in-an-increase-of-violent-behaviour-and-crimes-in-the-real-world]] [[https://debatewise.org/debates/872-are-video-games-promoting-violence]] [[https://debatewise.org/debates/1322-does-mobile-innovations-negatively-affect-young-people]] Obviously gamers and video game producers, support their proliferation, they're addicts and money-makers: Please cite unbiased sources next time.","Violent games lead to violent actions I completely agree with nicksto99, Cameron's argument focuses on video games as a whole, not specifically violent video games. Also, I don't believe that coming up with an argument should just be limited to copying and pasting a news article. The American Academy of Pediatrics warned that violent media set a poor example for kids. Video games, the academy noted, \"should not use human or other living targets or award points for killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others.\" With examples like GTA V, you get money for killing someone, allowing you to purchase more guns, vehicles, and ammo to kill even more people. Further than that, in that game, you can go on missions where you smuggle out drugs, rob banks, and be chased by police, all to be rewarded and encouraged if you accomplish those goals. Think about how these achievements can affect people, especially growing youths. You don't want people roaming around the streets with the belief that shooting someone or robbing a bank is good, just because it is in a video game. If you look at youtube or twitch gamers that play violent video games or games where you kill people, it is so common to see cursing, shouting, and raging.","Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour The facts are strongly against the Proposition’s analysis The proposition’s arguments fail to stand up in the real world. Several major studies published in The Journal of Adolescent Health, The British Medical Journal and The Lancet (among others) have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and real-life violent behaviour. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence linking video game use to the massacre at Columbine (or other highly publicized school shootings).[1] There is no evidence to support the idea that people exposed to violent video game (or other violent media content) will then go on to commit crimes.[2] Further, if violent video games were causing violent behaviour, we would expect to see rates of violent crime increase as games with realistic portrayals of violence became more widely available on popular game consoles. Instead, violent crime has decreased in recent years. Some economists have argued (based on time series modelling) that increased sales of violent video games are associated with decreases in violent crime.[3] In Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, researchers/authors Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media refute claims of violent behaviour increase caused by violent video games. The researchers' quantitative and qualitative studies (surveys and focus groups) found that young adolescents view game behaviour as unrelated to real-life actions, and this is why they can enjoy criminal or violent acts in a game that would horrify them in reality. They also found evidence that those relatively few adolescents who did not play video games at all were more at-risk for violent behaviours such as bullying or fighting (although the sample size was too small for statistical significance). The authors speculated that because video game play has gained a central and normative role in the social lives of adolescent boys, a boy who does not play any video games might be socially isolated or rejected. Finally, although more study is needed, there is some evidence to suggest that violent video games might allow players to get aggressive feelings out of their system (i.e., video game play might have a cathartic effect), in a scenario that does not harm anyone else.[4],[5],[6] [1] O’Toole, Mary Ellen, ‘The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment perspective’, Critical Incident Response Group, www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter [2] Editorial. Is exposure to media violence a public-health risk? The Lancet, 2008, 371:1137. [3] Cunningham, Scott, et al., ‘Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime’, 7 April 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 [4] Kutner, Lawrence & Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. Simon and Schuster, 2008 [5] Bensley, Lillian and Juliet Van Eenwyk. Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001, 29:244-257. [6] Griffiths, Mark. Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 2005, 331:122-123.","Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Violent computer games do make children violnet citizens, since Kids (between the ages of 9-35) LOVE playing video games.Violent video games are know to create higher stress levels in younger kids.Kids who play violent video games usually turn into psycho-path killers.","Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals As of now, every lawsuit that has been filed against the game industry for cases such as this have been thrown out. Why, you ask? Because the science doesn't back up such claims. As we all should very well know, correlation doesn't imply causation; this is basic psychology. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show the causal link between video game violence and an increase in aggression. As is with most studies, the one my you have posted simply concludes that individuals who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression. However, this still does not address the issue at hand, of whether or not violent video games lead to real life violence. Such experiments are methodologically unsound' the environment is drastically different, and participants are in situations they normally wouldn't be. Even so, such experiments don't establish this \"link\" between violent video games and aggression. [1] People know what they are playing, and what context it is. It's for fun, and they are conscious of what goals they are playing it for: entertainment. Studies in apes show a distinction between play fighting and ripping each others gut out in real combat. It shows that apes do make distinctions between the two, so why can't humans? [1] Yeah, individuals get a physiological response to violent video games, as do people who watch porn. In the same way, the movie industry has been here long before video games came along, and the violence in many movies such as Saw (yummy) is no secret. Roughly 79 percent of America's youth play video games, many of them for at least eight hours a week. [2] Holy camels there must be shootings and beatings and rapes all over the street! But wait a minute, then explain to me why the crime rate in America is going down. [3] Surely, it should be spiking up with the video game industry exploding in its few decades of existence, but the evidence speaks otherwise. ---References--- 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu... 3. http://www.livescience.com...","Video Games Cause Real-World Violence Video games do not cause real-world violence. While some people who cause violence do play violent video games, correlation does not equal causation. I do not believe that video games cause violence and invite people to try to convince me otherwise.","In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Since my opponent has not defined one key word in this debate I shall.Violence is the use of physical force to harm someone or damage property. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Studies show they cause violence. We can see by this chart above that people believe that these violent video games cause violence. (http://yougov.co.uk...)Now you may ask me why does video games cause violence? The answer is simple. It's the media's effectiveness to market products and slogans to a younger audience causing them to practically do what the company wants them to do. Craig Anderson, Professor at Iowa St University lead a research of over 3,000 children and found that children who play violent video games for a short period of time during the week lead to permanent changes in the brain, causing them to become more violent towards other. (http://time.com...) They also found in a study in Singapore that when they did the same study with children between the ages of 8-17 that violence increases over a three year period. They hit, kick, and push a whole lot more. (http://www.foxnews.com...) In a 2008 study of Grand Theft Childhood, they found that 60% of Middle Schoolers that beat up someone up played at least 1 M rated game compared to the 39% of kids who did not. (Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr) According to an FBI study done in 2000, they found a link between violent video games and school shootings. (http://videogames.procon.org...) Con also says that if sales are linked then why are they going down, but let me show you this graph here. Coincidence? I think not. How can we dwarf an entire continent in both game sales and homicide rates?I will hand things off to Pro once more.","The content of Video Games You seem to be saying that in war-torn places, kids are exposed to real-life violence and such exposure is linked to real-life teen violence; but in places where there are no wars and where kids have access to electronics and the Internet, teens who play violent video games will limit the violence to the virtual world and will not transpose their participation in violent acts from the virtual to the real world. In other words, as far as violence goes, you think there is a partition of the virtual and the real worlds. There are no crossovers. From a logic standpoint, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is to cite one example of crossover. Such an example is not hard to find: e.g. the Columbine High School Massacre that took place in 1999. In this event, 2 teenagers, after a long period of planning, finally walked through the school hallways one day and killed over a dozen schoolmates before killing themselves. They were known to be gamers and, in the afternoons, they used to played the game DOOM, a first person shooter game that not only pioneered immersive 3D graphics and networked multiplayer gaming but also engaged in graphic and interactive violence. The two killers did not come from broken homes. They experienced a normal amount of bullying, both receiving and providing. The only constant source of mental images of violence came from the virtual world of DOOM. Eventually, through mutual encouragement and collaboration, they decided to put in action a violent way to die for themselves and for some of their schoolmates. They crossed over. I am not saying all gamers will cross over. I am saying we can not afford to have even a single person crossed over because of the potential devastation. When we experienced an event such as Columbine's, we drew the conclusion that violent video games do contribute to teen violence in real life.","Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Violent video games don't lead to violent behaivior any more than playing Candy Crush leads to candy addictions. If anything, they are cathartic. Studies on this topic are plagued by the fact that correlation does not imply causation. If a murderer plays violent video games, isn't it more logical to say that as someone who kills in real life would kill in a game than to say that the game led him/her to the act of killing?","Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and 'enlightened' parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young.","media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth. youths playing video games are still yet to mature. they still don't understand that watching movies or playing video games will tempt them in a way they don;t know.","should kids be able to play violent video games Well to Start things off as soon as there's a mass shooting in schools are anywhere they immediately blame violent video games. Well did they really research before they say these claims? Well obviously they didn't because only 2 of 9 mass shooters were actually into violent video games. The reason they started these claims is because of the amount of evidence showing that violent video games causes aggression and they're right. But not by a lot because. According to Catherine Newman, \"tons of small children play Silent shooter games that only a small fraction become violent.\" I have a friend and he is interested in games like Call of Duty and Mortal Combat and he is actually quiet and relaxed, has a good sense of humor and in generally nice.","Video games encourage violent behavior Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of \"I'm going to kill you,\" and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.","Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Media Violence does absolutely have a negative effect on Today's youth. Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts in youth.","Video Games do not Cause Violence As to the Columbine massacre (the news article that you are talking about), it has never been proven that Eric Harris' and Dylan Klebold's playing of violent video games had influenced their actions. The most likely cause of the massacre was bullying and mental illness (as the FBI had found). Many implications have been made pointing to video games being the cause but the majority of these are either proven untrue or not confirmed. [1]To the 8 year old killing his grandmother, the link between playing violent video games and the murder is unproven. This was just the police racing to find a cause of the attack and finding out that the kid played a violent video game. This unfortunately happens a lot with violent crimes, people will race to find a cause and end up finding the wrong one. [2]A study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence found absolutely no evidence between video games and violence in vulnerable teens. In fact, in some cases the violent video games had a calming effect on the player. [3]My arguments:Many studies have shown that violent video games do not desensitize kids and those most liable to have their minds altered. The studies would show kids who play non-violent and violent games different pictures, some showing graphic scenes (like a man holding a gun to a woman's head). The subjects would have their reactions to the photos monitored and recorded. They found that there was no difference between the violent game players' and non-violent game players' reactions. Many kids recognize and respect the boundaries between the virtual and real world, and would not cross them when it comes to violence. [4][5]Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.cnn.com...[3] . http://www.springer.com...[4] . http://health.usnews.com...[5] . http://gamepolitics.com...","Violent videogames cause violence in players 97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume. *Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently. http://www.pewinternet.org... http://www.cdc.gov... Over to you pro.","Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Studies have shown that when children are introduced to violence of any form the become aggressive, even if the aggression is short-term, it affects the child's personality, and can cause him or her to show that same type of aggression in real life situations. One report states, \"One of the most severe effects of violent video games on children is that the games are addictive and they tend to keep children engaged for a longer period. Many parents must have observed that their child becomes restless if he/ she does not play the specific game for the specific time every day. This can affect the child's mental stability and make him dependent on the game.\" Clearly the evidence shows that violence from video games can have devastating effects.","Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems Video games of a violent nature tend to fail to offer many solutions to a problem. Most military shooters have no form of negotiation with enemies; players are asked to simply kill as many nameless terrorists as possible. Given this, social interaction problems can be caused because people are presented with problems and then told that they must be solved with violence instead of other methods. In other words, physical violence is portrayed as the first-choice (and often only-choice) solution to a conflict. This lack of portrayal of alternate solutions can stifle growth of other skills, especially amongst children and adolescents, specifically skills important to making friends and engaging in negotiation in times of conflict or pressure. Further, it encourages children to see people who oppose them as “others,” and thus presents them psychologically as enemies instead of as people who are simply different to the player and thus might have other grievances. This can lead to increases in aggression among players. This is especially true given the relatively simplistic portrayal of conflicts within areas such as the Middle East and Afghanistan.[1] [1] \"Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research\". apa.org. American Psychological Association. 27 September 2011.","Video Games Cause Real-World Violence The problem with that argument is that you're giving video games as the only possible reason for violence ignoring the fact that many people who kill \"because of video games\" suffer from mental health issues, abusive families, bullying, etc.. To say that violent video games cause violence is to say that no other factors affect it. And, there is statistical evidence that video games do not affect violent behavior if you account for external factors such as the ones listed above. And statistical evidence is always more valid than circumstantial evidence, you will always be able to find someone that committed an act of violence because of whatever you can imagine, people have killed people over loud music. Does that mean that loud music causes violence? No! It means that people will use anything as a reason to kill one another.","Media Violence is having a Negative Effect on today's Youth. Yes it may be poor parenting but the parent need to understand that if the child plays violent video games or watches a movie then the child will start to get worse and want to hurt people not always but it is believed that kids who play or watch violence will act violent with or without a parent to guide them it really is all on the kid to stop the violence they can play the game but to much of it and they will want to play the play or walk the walk.","Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven. The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game. These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups. Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual.[1] Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process.","Video games are making children more violent in nature. I believe that video games are shaping many children in a negative way. This is mainly because of games like modern warfare and grand theft auto (purely as an example here). These games -and ones of a similar genre- are introducing violence to a much younger audience than the intended target market of the games. The competitive side to these games and their harsh and explicit nature is teaching children to be a lot more violent towards one another: Even though this is not the specific aim of the game.","Video Games cause violence Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about.)There is no evidence to support video games cause things such as murders or school shootings etc. Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc.","Violent games lead to violent actions It may cause them to think that but they can help let out stress. You have no support to back up your opinion so give me the numbers my first debate had the numbers and proof I have now made my debate improved so argue with this: I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes make you violent ? No that\"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn\"t. But that\"s what some people actually believe, and today I\"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don\"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they\"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I\"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions because their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. And violence is lower in countries that play more video games. 2005 in Japan had 73 murders compared to the US's poor run of 2,279 just by teens. Basically what I\"m saying is that we could do a lot better Japan is one of the most populous countries in the world and they have the least murders. Video games actually stop people being violent . Per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the United States compared to $47 in Japan. You might think videogames are for kids but as an adult pro gamer you get millions even billions. I think as NZ we should start a gaming festival or competition at ASB Showgrounds Auckland every year. I believe that videogames have nothing to do with other people being violent.","Religion causes more violence than video games Pro.. I have reasons to believe that you have not read my statements in full. But.. nonetheless: The following times magazine article discussing the video game violence has given insight onto the subject of the matter, drawing conclusions based based on studies in the US where children are becoming more and more violent due to playing video-games. If the young child (the teen) is exposed at such an early age to this type of violent video games then their personality and brain function changes as well, developing him into an aggressive adult. Now lets take this into consideration. Most of today's soldiers are trained through simulations, most of tactics and advanced weaponry are developed thorough simulation on a computer. If these simulations are being \"dumb\" down to a video game level, which is what most of today's war games are like (they collaborate with the military forces) to implement in their games in order to make them more realistic. You would argue that these game have not created any wars but such event as Columbine and many others [2] have created this internal war. Now lets look at how many fight there have been since the 2000's that involved teens took matters into their own hands and started killing people. That number will have to be very small since i was unable to find any that were documented. I believe that video games are developing an aggressive behavior in today's teens and even preteens (20+) which can impact their behaviors in the future. [1] http://time.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...","Violent video games are real danger to young minds. Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer.\"","Video Games do not Cause Violence Do video games cause violence? In a simple answer, yes. In the past 15 years, the number of gamers has gone up drastically due to both increased gaming quality and the new notions of multiplayer games, such as MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) games and simple 'LAN' games which allow you to play with a friend. Allow me to quote a news article. \"On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games.\" I'm sure everyone is aware that the PG rating on First Person Shooter games, or pretty much any game that contains violence or sex is literally just ink. Do people really think that kids underage pay attention to those ratings? Get with the modern world. Though it may be unfortunate, it's common knowledge that children participate in over 18 activities including not limited to these video games. It was only last year that an 8 year old shot and killed his caretaker (87 years old) after playing a particularly violent video game. It's people like that little boy who are most vulnerable to influence from video games and from adults who encourage that sort of behavior that are often encountered online. The real reason these games cause violence is because they are given to people who are sometimes mentally unhinged, and also to small children who can easily pirate them from the web. The facts state that these games are mentally damaging to many people. But the biggest problem of all lies in the age rating, because it means nothing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet children want to play those games more, to feel like a proper adult. Winning in a game is a childish notion of victory and defeat is the same. Those notions, however, have killed people in the past. That is proof enough that the games cause violence.","video game violence First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.","Video games encourage violent behavior In a nutshell, you state that the act of playing video games turns the players into illogical and induces stress, which causes violence. However, you must keep in mind the following: 1: A video game is played for entertainment. I'd like you to explain how games cause stress (Physical strain does not count. We are talking about mental strain, as that is the argument you are using here.). 2: If playing violent video games increases violent behavior in children, as your argument stated, then why is that South Korea, a country that plays over two times more video games than the United States has ZERO shootings out of a sample of 100,000? Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... (States that video games are intended for entertainment) [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... (States that video games have no correlation with youth violence, often associated with shootings/gun murders) If you have any other arguments to present, please do. Until then, I will await your response.","Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children Thanks Con for this good topic. The following argument will have: Why Video Games, are Influencing, and Causing Violence amognst kids. Some Rebuttals on what Con had stated. Violent video games are causing children to have the mindset that, it ok to deal with your problem(s), in a anti-social way. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. http://videogames.procon.org... Con has stated examples of Violence in Children. \"Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot.\" \"I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. \" However these occurances are rare as it is. We dont see another replica of the Sandy Hook incident everyday. We dont see kids going out and shooting other people. BUT, the perpitrator, during the Sandy Hook shooting, was mentally ill! So this impared his ability to judge how realistic these games he was player were! So this brings the question -- Could he have thought he could did this no problem? I think YES. Cons argument basically says that Video Games arent causing EXTREME violnece suvch as shootings, and murders. But there are other types of small violence that are coming from video games that just arent making world headlines. Bullying is a type of Violence that is extermely commom amongst kids these days and these game can turn kids INTO bullys. Games are making kids change thier thoughts, on how to deal with small everyday problems. To hit or punch a kid because he mad you mad THATS VIOLENCE. This can be influenced because lets say this kid was playing Battlefield thother day and when he got mad at other player online, he KILLS them. So thought before he hits someone is \"I can kill people in Battlefield or Call of Duty! I can hit this kid\" Its a small form of violence, but it is still violence. Many children playing games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and especially GTA, are UNDER THE AGE OF 12. So many of these children are not realizing that in Real Life, you can not just punch someone and run away. You have to answer for what you did. In these games you would never see that. People kill other people, and think like its no big deal. Yes, this will not translate into someone going to shootout a scholl, BUT IT WILL TRASNLATE INTO KIDS COMMITING SAMLL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES. Con states: \"Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child.\" Not true. If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens) This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game.","do video games cause viloence I think video games don't cause violence because kids have accepted the fact that it isn't real. They know the consequences of doing the things they see In video games and accept it. In a case ,involving a school shooter who played Dance Dance Revolution, it showed no connection between the game and killer. The case was given to a lieutenant who came up with the conclusion that games have no effect on kids.","Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual.","Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings. Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called ‘’Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime’’. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI’s nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book ‘’Crime and Criminals’’. He writes, ‘’If Bok’s right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?’’. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. \"Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime.\" N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. \"WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business.\" WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!","Video Games Can Cause Violence The most common argument is that video games desensitize your reaction to violence, thus making you violent. But anyone who has the cognitive faculties to purchase, set up and operate modern games consoles won't have trouble with being desensitized. According to records held by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Office of Justice Programs, sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period. It should be the other way around, if that was true. although researchers have often noted the preference of violent video games by many school shooters, given that 97 percent of adolescents play video games such a preference is not overly surprising. It could similarly be argued that oxygen consumption predicts school shootings and crime, because most school shooters likely breathed within 10 seconds before their violent attack (Hey, maybe it does) I'll post more if you actually respond","Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence,\" who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.","In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Observation:The resolution is about the impact of violence in video games, not about the impact of video games themselves.What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockfeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, “People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.” (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller’s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, “It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…” (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime. AgressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause agression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that agression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certianly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Agression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough. The evidence:If violence in video games have caused violence in the past, it would make sense for the violence rates to go up as video game sales went up. However, just the opposite happened: We can see that as video game sales go up, violent crime went down. Now, I certianly won't argue that video games caused the violent crime to go down, but this evidence certianly makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games has caused real world violence.ConclusionHuey notes (1), \"...these games may seem repugnant but they do not harm the human brain or increase the likelihood of violent acts.\" Through the evidence I have presented, we can see that the violence in video games does not cause real world violence. Thus, I take the pro stance on this resolution.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.sfgate.com...(4) http://www.goodtherapy.org...#(5) Chasing the Dream, “The Economist” On to con...","Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: \"The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.\" Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. \"School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few.\"[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...","Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant \"Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]\" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.","I think it does In my opinion violent video games do cause crime because I have heard news that there was a guy that was playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and he ran away from home. It was caused because he was playing Call of Duty when he was on Xbox live. He was missing for 2 weeks and his parents didn’t check up on him or cared about him. 2 weeks later they found the child dead in the forest. But I do think that it only accrues to different types of children. So I do think that violent video game cause crime.","Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children's aggression. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet.\" Additionally, there's an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games. Violent video games don't teach kids moral consequences. \"If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way — you get extra points!\"","Should kids play MA video games Ah, yes. The age-old philosophical question of whether or not kids should be able twist video game characters' heads right off of their bodies and watch the pixelated blood go spurting. Or watch them smoke cigarettes, or whatnot. What a deep query you have made, my son. The answer: The actual studies say there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior: . http://psycnet.apa.org...Case closed.","Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Depending on age the answer differs. Little kids can be influenced by anything. There is a reason video games have ratings. (EC, E, E10+, T, M) CNN reports \"A new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive in real life.\" Violent Video Games can influence people to be violent.","Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled.","Violent games lead to violent actions I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes you violent ? No that\"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn\"t. But that\"s what some people actually believe, and today I\"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don\"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they\"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I\"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions and this is why: their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. I stand with video games for life.","Violent games lead to violent actions Thank you very much nicksto99 for your helpful insight on this topic and the debate. This is what nicksto99 said: According to a meta-analysis done on video games; The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and pro-social behavior. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......). This article in the U.S National Library of Medecine strongly disproves Con's arguments. Con also uses the False Cause fallacy, saying that since Japanese people play more videos games and are less violent than Americans who play less of them, therefore their gaming tendencies reduce their violence. This blatant use of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc does not prove anything since it does not rely on any empirical data; drawing conclusions on two correlated tendencies that do not necessarily have causation between them. Indeed, the low levels of violence could be caused by the non-presence of illegal immigrants or guns in the country for example. This is not the only case of studies showing a correlation between violent video games, as seen by reputable news sources telling of how many mass murders have been influenced by violent videogames and have even used them to train themselves for the horrible acts they carry out. Just look it up.","Video Games cause violence Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is \"Video games cause violence\", not \"All video games cause violence\". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --","Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockefeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, “People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, paediatricians, and psychologists know better.” (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller’s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, “It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…” (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime.AggressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certainly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Aggression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough.Violence rates:Here is the most important point of this debate. Logically, if violence in video games significantly contribute to real world violence, violent crime rates would rise as video game sales rise. This, however, is untrue: Now, I don't claim that this decrease is due to video game sales (a lot of other factors could have affected the decline). However, this decrease makes mockery of the idea that video games have legitimately contributed to the rise of violence in society today (5). Video game's effect:Releasing AggressionStudies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes \"If you give them video games, they’ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we’d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There’s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other (6).\" The inmates clearly were able to release their aggression in a way that doesn't hurt other people. This can be applied to other people as well. Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids.Enjoyment of ViolenceThis is an important part of the debate. Many people don't become violent because of violence in video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they enjoy violence. In order for con to win this point, he must prove that the violence in video games causes the violence. A simple correlation between violent people and people that play violent video games is not enough.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.goodtherapy.org... (5) Chasing the Dream, “The Economist”(6) http://freakonomics.com...","Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems The facts are against the premise again. Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011). The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking—all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do.[1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game’s storyline or outcome. [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257","Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: 2 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from improve this","Violent video games desensitise users Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2 1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily: 2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: improve this","Video games make children More violent Do Violent Video Games Increase Aggression? Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both the short-term and long-term. Violent video games can also desensitize people to seeing aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behaviors such as helping another person and feeling empathy (the ability to understand others). The longer that individuals are exposed to violent video games, The more likely they are to have aggressive behaviors, Thoughts, And feelings. These effects have been seen in studies in both Eastern and Western countries. Although males spend more time than females playing violent video games, Violent video game exposure can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both sexes. The analysis of 24 studies from countries including the U. S. , Canada, Germany and Japan found those who played violent games such as \"Grand Theft Auto, \" \"Call of Duty\" and \"Manhunt\" were more likely to exhibit behavior such as being sent to the principal's office for fighting or hitting a non-family member. \"Although no single research project is definitive, Our research aims to provide the most current and compelling responses to key criticisms on this topic, \" said Jay Hull, Lead author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. \"Based on our findings, We feel it is clear that violent video game play is associated with subsequent increases in physical aggression, \" said Hull, Associate dean of faculty for the social sciences at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, And the Dartmouth Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Video game violence has been a hot-button issue for more than a decade. Interest in research on video games' potential for violence increased after it was learned Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, The two teenagers who committed the Columbine High School shooting, Played the first-person shooting computer game \"Doom. \" But in a 2011 Supreme Court decision overturning California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, The late Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed a link between the games and aggression. \"These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, And with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively, \" he wrote in the majority opinion. Since then, An American Psychological Association task force report in 2015 found a link between violent video games and increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence that violent games lead to criminal violence. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump convened a video game summit a month after the February shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Prior to that meeting, Trump said, \"I\"m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people\"s thoughts. \" The Dartmouth researchers sought to reduce confusion about research findings \" including disputes about the association between violent games and aggression \" with a finely structured meta-analysis. Those in the study who played violent games, Whether frequently or infrequently, Had an increase risk of aggressive behavior. The new research echoes Hull's previous finding that playing violent games equates to about twice the risk of being sent to the principal\"s office for fighting during an eight-month period, He said. A separate 2014 study he oversaw of violent video games in 2, 000 families is one of the 24 included in the meta-analysis. The effect is \"relatively small, But statistically reliable. The effect does exist, \" Hull said. While there's not research suggesting violent video games lead to criminal behavior, Hull's previous research suggests players may practice riskier behaviors such as reckless driving, Binge drinking, Smoking and unsafe sex. \"A lot of people ask, Do these games really cause these kids to behave aggressively? I would say that is one possibility, \" he said. \"The other possibility is that it's a really bad sign. If your kids are playing these games, Either these games are having a warping effect on right and wrong or they have a warped sense of right or wrong and that\"s why they are attracted to these games. Either way you should be concerned about it. \" Aggressive behavior is measured by scientists in a number of ways. Some studies looked at self-reports of hitting or pushing, And some looked at peer or teacher ratings on aggressive behaviors. Other studies looked at how likely an individual was to subject others to an unpleasant exposure to hot sauce or a loud noise after playing violent video games. Unfortunately, Few studies have been completed on violent video game exposure and aggression in children under age 10. There is also little information about the impact of violent video game exposure on minority children. There have not been many studies on the effects of different characteristics of video games, Such as perspective or plot. However, Some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence Do Violent Video Games Increase Violence? Violence is a form of aggression, But not all aggressive behaviors are violent. Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chances of later delinquency, Criminal behavior, Or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct, And require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also results in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, But there is no clear evidence to support that assumption. Policy In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018, Policymakers are again questioning the influence of violent video games. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) affirms that their rating system is effective, But the APA Task Force on Violent Media recommends that the ESRB revise their rating system to make the level of violence clearer. The Task Force also recommends that further research must be done using delinquency, Violence, And criminal behavior as outcomes to determine whether or not violent video games are linked to violence. Bottom Line Studies show that they make children more violent.","Do Video Games Create Violence (Genius Hour) Video games do not cause children or any players to be violent, this is a myth. There are tons of studies that argue the case that video games are detrimental to our society but these studies only see and argue for one side of the spectrum.","no violent video games don't cause violence So, for clarity, I'm arguing that violent video games CAN lead to violence. Here is an article for you to read http://liti4.wordpress.com... - in the article this 17 year old claims that he thought if he shot his parents they would respawn. Now if this guy is telling the truth, then that proves beyond doubt that the violent video game (Halo 3 in this case) was the cause of the violence, and even if he was lying, the reason that he shot his parents was because they WOULD NOT let him play Halo 3, so he killed them. This shows an addiction to the violent video game that allows for extraneous violence to occur, therefore proving that the violent video game caused violence, thus proving that violent video games CAN lead to violence. That is to say, violent video games do not ALWAYS cause violence, but CAN in some cases. Now, your argument used the term 'psyche', which is defined as the human soul. You claimed that violence is not caused by playing a violent video game, but by the person's soul. Therefore, burden of proof is on you to prove that humans have souls. If you cannot prove that humans have souls, then, as you have not given any other reason that violence may occur, you are accepting that kids who have played violent video games and then become violent are violent due to those violent video games. I look forward to your argument.","The content of Video Games I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?","violent video games should be banned You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted \"Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay\". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.","Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression. Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"High-profile events such as teenagers getting inspired by the actions of a violent video game character can be tragic, but they also distract from the large body of knowledge that has accumulated on the impact of violent media on children. Since the early 1970s, scientists have observed very clear, frequently replicated and strikingly robust effects. In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films — or who play violent video games — are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations.\"","no violent video games don't cause violence if a kid plays a violent video game and then develops violent behaviors its not because of the video game. you need to look into that childs psyche instead of the video games. i personally think that video games give the person an excuse to take action towards the violent thoughts that their minds fabricated on their own. there is obviously something wrong with the person if they go and do these things just because they play a game that does it. take it from me I'm a teenager who has suffered abuse and bullying. i have been diagnosed with major depression, adhd, and ocd. i have been in programs and stuff to help myself. i have performed self mutilation. and i play cod black ops every night. i am more intuned to becoming violent than normal kids without these issues. but I'm not violent aim one of the sweetest people i know","Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior 1. Meta-analytic reviewsCon claims that meta-analytic reviews show that methodologically superior studies show that video games do cause violence. However, many meta-analysis studies which show that there is a link between video gaming and violence are plagued with publication bias and methodological problems, such as citing studies which were not published or selecting certain studies and ignoring others. (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...) 2. Non-Laboratory resultsA survey is not a study: it can be affected by the personal biases of teachers and students. As the teachers knew which students whose violent behaviors they were rating, the survey that pro cited was not sufficiently blinded. (http://drdouglas.org...) Also, many experts, parents, and paediatricians agree that violent video games do not cause violence. (http://www.theguardian.com...) If the survey that pro cited were to be counted as valid evidence, then this should be too.One of the methodological flaws of using labratory results is that the violent clips and video game content are often served to the groups of youth outside of their contexts; the entire narrative of the violent work of fiction was not provided. This is different than in real life situations. (http://www.independent.co.uk...)3. Crime RatesPro claims that crime rates decreased in spite of violent media becoming more popular. I propose an alternative idea: violent media has nothing to do with crime rates. Studies have shown that the one thing that correlates with crime is gasoling lead levels. (http://www.ricknevin.com...)","Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as \"cool\" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...","The content of Video Games We are now at our final round of debate. I'd like to summarize by saying while I agree there is no direct evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between violent video games and teen violence, we can NOT afford to think that having violent video games readily available for people of all ages does not pose certain degree of concern. The concern is it occupies the mind of immature and mentally unstable teenagers with aggressive thoughts and might trigger violent behavior, causing great harm to other people and demoralize the rest of society. Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the \"last straw on the back of the camel\" and played into their final act? One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?","Video Games increase child violence Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book \"Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents\" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.","Video Games Lead To Violence There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, \"Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain.\" While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.","Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because \"it helps me get my anger out\" and 62% played because it \"helps me relax.\" Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.","Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a ‘scary world’, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.","There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases. 1Goldstein, 2001. 2Walsh, 2001.","There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent. 1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology: 2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90. 3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. improve this","Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'","Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1. 1Senate Committee, 1993.","should vilent video games be banned Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.","Violent video games lead to violent behaivior I see you are still not specifying an age. But until you do, I will stick to children's age. But here is something for you. \"The question of whether children's participation in violent video games can lead to an increase in violent thoughts, emotions and behaviors has been resolved, and the conclusive answer is yes. Studies that have provided this answer are based on statistical comparisons between large groups of children who do or don't play violent video games. \" Also as i stated in my previous statement, why do you think there are ratings for games? Game designers even recognize that violence can influence people, especially children. Thank You. Now your argument.","Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...","Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.","The content of Video Games No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.","Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.","Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you\"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.","Do games teach kids violence. Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...","The content of Video Games It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.","Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Many researchers (Ask, 1999; Funk, 1993, 1995; Provenzo, 1991) conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who probably already are habitually violent.","Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is \" Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes \" A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time."],"string":"[\n \"Do games teach kids violence. We aren't even debating the existence of a causal link, only the fact that children learn violence from video games. I hereby provide quotes from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to settle this issue once and for all.\\\"Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy.\\\" [1]\\\"Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed.\\\"The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. At a Congressional public health summit in July 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was joined by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association in issuing an unprecedented joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Also in 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report on shootings in schools that stated that media violence is a risk factor. \\\"In 2003, a panel of media-violence experts convened by the National Institute of Mental Health, at the request of the US Surgeon General, published its comprehensive report on the effects of media violence on youth, which revealed media violence to be a significant causal factor in aggression and violence. Most recently, in 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its report on violent television programming and its effects on children and agreed with the Surgeon General that there is “strong evidence” that exposure to media violence can increase aggressive behavior in children.\\\" [2]\\\"As one leading group of researchers has stated, there should no longer be any controversy that a cause-and-effect relationship exists. More than 3500 reports, including 1000 research studies, have been made; <30 studies have found no relation. In fact, the connection between media violence and real-life aggression is nearly as strong as the connection between smoking and lung cancer. \\\"Given the complexities of performing social-science research, this finding is quite striking. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, and not everyone who views media violence will become aggressive. In addition, context is extremely important, as are mediating factors such as personality differences and parenting. \\\"Overall, an estimated 10% to 30% of violence in society can be attributed to the impact of media violence. Clearly, media violence is not the leading cause of violence in society, but it is a significant one.\\\" [3]Specific sources in comments :)\",\n \"Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence First of all, as an observation, Juvenile can be defined as the following, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: \\\" physiologically immature or undeveloped\\\", :reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity\\\", and \\\"of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people.\\\" Therefore, since no exact age-bar ws given by the Pro, we can assume anyone is a juvenile if they match the description. This means adults who have mental disabilities, and people of all ages who bear these characteristics meeet the criteria of \\\"Juvenile.\\\" First - Kids/Juveniles who play violent video games are prone to Violent Videogames, as told by a journal Pediatrics in it's study in 2008. Anne Harding of CNN, who covered the study, reported on three groups in the study: \\\"In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure.\\\" CBSNews' 60 Minutes even went on about how a violent video game, Grand Theft Auto, led to a rampage by one of the kids who played it: \\\"And now, the game is at the center of a civil lawsuit involving the murders of three men in the small town of Fayette, Ala. They were gunned down by 18-year-old Devin Moore, who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\\\" American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry elaborate on these effects: \\\"Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: “immune” or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images.\\\" Therefore, the effects of violent video games are true, and do exist. Therefore, I contend that video Games do increase juvenile violence, as anyone, including children, who are deemed able to be a \\\"juvenile\\\" by definition, can be pushed into doing violence.\",\n \"Video games encourage violent behavior Many people say that video games are making children violent people, (https://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu...), however, I completely disagree. I will be giving arguments in future rounds. I look forward to future arguments and seeing how this will come out.\",\n \"Violent video games should NOT be banned First of all this is my first debate so go easy on me. Lets start, Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\\\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. Many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime whch coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University's Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\\\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children's attention issues \\\" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\\\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids' addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal.\",\n \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. \\\"It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point.\\\" [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... I would like to add to Con's statement that it has also been proven that the amount of school shootings since 1993 have significantly decreased[2]. Let's look at what game genres that we have present today cause aggression in teens. According to con's earlier source[1], the main genre of video games that cause \\\"the deterioration of emotional tolerance\\\" are violent first-person shooters, such as ones mentioned like \\\"Call of Duty\\\" and \\\"Medal of Honor: Frontline\\\". It's relation with school shootings has a vital flaw, though. Throughout the period of time (from 1993 - 2001), when school shootings were at their peak in this statistic[2], the more violent genres of first-person shooters that caused aggression in teens[1] did not exist. At this point, it must be safe to assume that it was not the violent video games that heavily influenced the school shootings. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...\",\n \"Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and \\\"enlightened\\\" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young. 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:\",\n \"Video games don't equal violence Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.First of all dont always believe in the news. the news could be unreliable and it doesnt even give two sides of a story this is the reason most people think violent games cause havok when it doesnt. Also if Video games are so bad and it teaches children violence how come China a place with twice more games than U.S and most of those games are shooting. How come the crimerate is very low.First of all the supreme court went against the act of banning violent video games. On April 20, 1999, two seniors kids walked into their high school carrying rifles, and they opened fire. They shot tons of people, killing 12 students and one teacher and the people were appalled. School shootings had happened before, but this was a violence shooting and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games. (Source- how stuff works) Since then, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. There was a 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old high- schooler who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in the First of all there has been many test so many test and these test has been redone over and over and it shows that school shootings are caused by mental illnesses. That is a big misunderstanding and video games can lead children into less physical fights. Adam Lanza was mentally illed so he saw a gun and he was unstabbled. Like said there is no link with games and the real world violence.If you said 97% is playing violent video games why isnt most of them causing crime and saying it is from video games? Video game sales increase during 1994-2010 and there has been a decrease in crime.\",\n \"Video games do not cause children to commit crimes Thank you for your points and good luck. I believe that video games DO cause children children to commit crimes. Children get influenced by friends,family and society. But they also get influenced by television and video games. While some video games have educational content,many of the most popular games promote negative themes,such as: 1.The killing of people or animals. 2.The use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. 3.Criminal behaviour and disrespect of the law. 4.Sexual exploitation and abuse towards women. 5.Racial,sexual and gender stereotypes. 6.Foul language. All of these things can affect the child's brain. Yes it is just a video game,but MOST children take these negative themes out in real life. Studies show that children exposed to violence can become: 1. \\\"Numb\\\" to the horror of violence. 2. More aggressive. 3. depressed. Some children accept violence as a way to solve/handle problems. If children think that violence is a way to solve/handle things,they will cause crimes. If children think that the killing of people or animals are all right they will cause crimes. It affects the brain causing them to think its right and actually doing it in real life,thinking its fun. There has been heaps of real life incidents of children being violent in real life due to playing video games After students Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris opened fire in their Colorado high school in 1999 -- shooting 20 people and killing 13 -- Linda Sanders filed a lawsuit. Her husband was a teacher at Columbine and among the dead. The media revealed that Harris and Klebold played a lot of violent video games, including \\\"Wolfenstein 3D,\\\" \\\"Doom,\\\" and \\\"Mortal Kombat.\\\" Sanders named multiple video game publishers, including Sony and Nintendo, in the suit as well as Time Warner and Palm Pictures since the shooters had apparently watched \\\"The Basketball Diaries,\\\" in which a character uses a shotgun to kill students at his high school. So in conclusion, video games DO cause children to commit crimes. Thank you\",\n \"Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games. Paul Boxer. \\\"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\\\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \\\"A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' What the teens did represents one of the worst-case scenarios imagined by those who advocate for government to limit the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, such scenarios are very few and very far between. And Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision preventing the state of California from instituting a ban on the sale of such games to minors. The decision was steeped in legal precedent concerning free speech and censorship. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court’s decision in no way negates or devalues the decades of scientific research that have been conducted demonstrating that the consumption of violent media leads to increases in aggressive and anti-social behavior.\\\"\",\n \"Video Games cause violence Brief Rebuttals to Brief pointsa) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that \\\"All video games cause violence\\\". In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!\",\n \"IDK I think there are a bunch of already existing debates on this. They basically mention Columbine, soldiers with mental problems and some hormone released while playing games that makes people more aggressive social recluses. Countered by video games require intelligence, give kids a reason to hang out (most have at least two consoles) and how cases of extreme violence are rare but can be attributed to other factors that reportedly instigate violence as well. [[https://debatewise.org/debates/320-violent-video-games-music-and-films-are-resulting-in-an-increase-of-violent-behaviour-and-crimes-in-the-real-world]] [[https://debatewise.org/debates/872-are-video-games-promoting-violence]] [[https://debatewise.org/debates/1322-does-mobile-innovations-negatively-affect-young-people]] Obviously gamers and video game producers, support their proliferation, they're addicts and money-makers: Please cite unbiased sources next time.\",\n \"Violent games lead to violent actions I completely agree with nicksto99, Cameron's argument focuses on video games as a whole, not specifically violent video games. Also, I don't believe that coming up with an argument should just be limited to copying and pasting a news article. The American Academy of Pediatrics warned that violent media set a poor example for kids. Video games, the academy noted, \\\"should not use human or other living targets or award points for killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others.\\\" With examples like GTA V, you get money for killing someone, allowing you to purchase more guns, vehicles, and ammo to kill even more people. Further than that, in that game, you can go on missions where you smuggle out drugs, rob banks, and be chased by police, all to be rewarded and encouraged if you accomplish those goals. Think about how these achievements can affect people, especially growing youths. You don't want people roaming around the streets with the belief that shooting someone or robbing a bank is good, just because it is in a video game. If you look at youtube or twitch gamers that play violent video games or games where you kill people, it is so common to see cursing, shouting, and raging.\",\n \"Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour The facts are strongly against the Proposition’s analysis The proposition’s arguments fail to stand up in the real world. Several major studies published in The Journal of Adolescent Health, The British Medical Journal and The Lancet (among others) have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and real-life violent behaviour. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence linking video game use to the massacre at Columbine (or other highly publicized school shootings).[1] There is no evidence to support the idea that people exposed to violent video game (or other violent media content) will then go on to commit crimes.[2] Further, if violent video games were causing violent behaviour, we would expect to see rates of violent crime increase as games with realistic portrayals of violence became more widely available on popular game consoles. Instead, violent crime has decreased in recent years. Some economists have argued (based on time series modelling) that increased sales of violent video games are associated with decreases in violent crime.[3] In Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, researchers/authors Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media refute claims of violent behaviour increase caused by violent video games. The researchers' quantitative and qualitative studies (surveys and focus groups) found that young adolescents view game behaviour as unrelated to real-life actions, and this is why they can enjoy criminal or violent acts in a game that would horrify them in reality. They also found evidence that those relatively few adolescents who did not play video games at all were more at-risk for violent behaviours such as bullying or fighting (although the sample size was too small for statistical significance). The authors speculated that because video game play has gained a central and normative role in the social lives of adolescent boys, a boy who does not play any video games might be socially isolated or rejected. Finally, although more study is needed, there is some evidence to suggest that violent video games might allow players to get aggressive feelings out of their system (i.e., video game play might have a cathartic effect), in a scenario that does not harm anyone else.[4],[5],[6] [1] O’Toole, Mary Ellen, ‘The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment perspective’, Critical Incident Response Group, www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter [2] Editorial. Is exposure to media violence a public-health risk? The Lancet, 2008, 371:1137. [3] Cunningham, Scott, et al., ‘Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime’, 7 April 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 [4] Kutner, Lawrence & Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. Simon and Schuster, 2008 [5] Bensley, Lillian and Juliet Van Eenwyk. Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001, 29:244-257. [6] Griffiths, Mark. Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 2005, 331:122-123.\",\n \"Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Violent computer games do make children violnet citizens, since Kids (between the ages of 9-35) LOVE playing video games.Violent video games are know to create higher stress levels in younger kids.Kids who play violent video games usually turn into psycho-path killers.\",\n \"Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals As of now, every lawsuit that has been filed against the game industry for cases such as this have been thrown out. Why, you ask? Because the science doesn't back up such claims. As we all should very well know, correlation doesn't imply causation; this is basic psychology. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show the causal link between video game violence and an increase in aggression. As is with most studies, the one my you have posted simply concludes that individuals who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression. However, this still does not address the issue at hand, of whether or not violent video games lead to real life violence. Such experiments are methodologically unsound' the environment is drastically different, and participants are in situations they normally wouldn't be. Even so, such experiments don't establish this \\\"link\\\" between violent video games and aggression. [1] People know what they are playing, and what context it is. It's for fun, and they are conscious of what goals they are playing it for: entertainment. Studies in apes show a distinction between play fighting and ripping each others gut out in real combat. It shows that apes do make distinctions between the two, so why can't humans? [1] Yeah, individuals get a physiological response to violent video games, as do people who watch porn. In the same way, the movie industry has been here long before video games came along, and the violence in many movies such as Saw (yummy) is no secret. Roughly 79 percent of America's youth play video games, many of them for at least eight hours a week. [2] Holy camels there must be shootings and beatings and rapes all over the street! But wait a minute, then explain to me why the crime rate in America is going down. [3] Surely, it should be spiking up with the video game industry exploding in its few decades of existence, but the evidence speaks otherwise. ---References--- 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu... 3. http://www.livescience.com...\",\n \"Video Games Cause Real-World Violence Video games do not cause real-world violence. While some people who cause violence do play violent video games, correlation does not equal causation. I do not believe that video games cause violence and invite people to try to convince me otherwise.\",\n \"In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Since my opponent has not defined one key word in this debate I shall.Violence is the use of physical force to harm someone or damage property. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Studies show they cause violence. We can see by this chart above that people believe that these violent video games cause violence. (http://yougov.co.uk...)Now you may ask me why does video games cause violence? The answer is simple. It's the media's effectiveness to market products and slogans to a younger audience causing them to practically do what the company wants them to do. Craig Anderson, Professor at Iowa St University lead a research of over 3,000 children and found that children who play violent video games for a short period of time during the week lead to permanent changes in the brain, causing them to become more violent towards other. (http://time.com...) They also found in a study in Singapore that when they did the same study with children between the ages of 8-17 that violence increases over a three year period. They hit, kick, and push a whole lot more. (http://www.foxnews.com...) In a 2008 study of Grand Theft Childhood, they found that 60% of Middle Schoolers that beat up someone up played at least 1 M rated game compared to the 39% of kids who did not. (Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr) According to an FBI study done in 2000, they found a link between violent video games and school shootings. (http://videogames.procon.org...) Con also says that if sales are linked then why are they going down, but let me show you this graph here. Coincidence? I think not. How can we dwarf an entire continent in both game sales and homicide rates?I will hand things off to Pro once more.\",\n \"The content of Video Games You seem to be saying that in war-torn places, kids are exposed to real-life violence and such exposure is linked to real-life teen violence; but in places where there are no wars and where kids have access to electronics and the Internet, teens who play violent video games will limit the violence to the virtual world and will not transpose their participation in violent acts from the virtual to the real world. In other words, as far as violence goes, you think there is a partition of the virtual and the real worlds. There are no crossovers. From a logic standpoint, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is to cite one example of crossover. Such an example is not hard to find: e.g. the Columbine High School Massacre that took place in 1999. In this event, 2 teenagers, after a long period of planning, finally walked through the school hallways one day and killed over a dozen schoolmates before killing themselves. They were known to be gamers and, in the afternoons, they used to played the game DOOM, a first person shooter game that not only pioneered immersive 3D graphics and networked multiplayer gaming but also engaged in graphic and interactive violence. The two killers did not come from broken homes. They experienced a normal amount of bullying, both receiving and providing. The only constant source of mental images of violence came from the virtual world of DOOM. Eventually, through mutual encouragement and collaboration, they decided to put in action a violent way to die for themselves and for some of their schoolmates. They crossed over. I am not saying all gamers will cross over. I am saying we can not afford to have even a single person crossed over because of the potential devastation. When we experienced an event such as Columbine's, we drew the conclusion that violent video games do contribute to teen violence in real life.\",\n \"Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Violent video games don't lead to violent behaivior any more than playing Candy Crush leads to candy addictions. If anything, they are cathartic. Studies on this topic are plagued by the fact that correlation does not imply causation. If a murderer plays violent video games, isn't it more logical to say that as someone who kills in real life would kill in a game than to say that the game led him/her to the act of killing?\",\n \"Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and 'enlightened' parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young.\",\n \"media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth. youths playing video games are still yet to mature. they still don't understand that watching movies or playing video games will tempt them in a way they don;t know.\",\n \"should kids be able to play violent video games Well to Start things off as soon as there's a mass shooting in schools are anywhere they immediately blame violent video games. Well did they really research before they say these claims? Well obviously they didn't because only 2 of 9 mass shooters were actually into violent video games. The reason they started these claims is because of the amount of evidence showing that violent video games causes aggression and they're right. But not by a lot because. According to Catherine Newman, \\\"tons of small children play Silent shooter games that only a small fraction become violent.\\\" I have a friend and he is interested in games like Call of Duty and Mortal Combat and he is actually quiet and relaxed, has a good sense of humor and in generally nice.\",\n \"Video games encourage violent behavior Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of \\\"I'm going to kill you,\\\" and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.\",\n \"Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Media Violence does absolutely have a negative effect on Today's youth. Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts in youth.\",\n \"Video Games do not Cause Violence As to the Columbine massacre (the news article that you are talking about), it has never been proven that Eric Harris' and Dylan Klebold's playing of violent video games had influenced their actions. The most likely cause of the massacre was bullying and mental illness (as the FBI had found). Many implications have been made pointing to video games being the cause but the majority of these are either proven untrue or not confirmed. [1]To the 8 year old killing his grandmother, the link between playing violent video games and the murder is unproven. This was just the police racing to find a cause of the attack and finding out that the kid played a violent video game. This unfortunately happens a lot with violent crimes, people will race to find a cause and end up finding the wrong one. [2]A study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence found absolutely no evidence between video games and violence in vulnerable teens. In fact, in some cases the violent video games had a calming effect on the player. [3]My arguments:Many studies have shown that violent video games do not desensitize kids and those most liable to have their minds altered. The studies would show kids who play non-violent and violent games different pictures, some showing graphic scenes (like a man holding a gun to a woman's head). The subjects would have their reactions to the photos monitored and recorded. They found that there was no difference between the violent game players' and non-violent game players' reactions. Many kids recognize and respect the boundaries between the virtual and real world, and would not cross them when it comes to violence. [4][5]Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.cnn.com...[3] . http://www.springer.com...[4] . http://health.usnews.com...[5] . http://gamepolitics.com...\",\n \"Violent videogames cause violence in players 97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume. *Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently. http://www.pewinternet.org... http://www.cdc.gov... Over to you pro.\",\n \"Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Studies have shown that when children are introduced to violence of any form the become aggressive, even if the aggression is short-term, it affects the child's personality, and can cause him or her to show that same type of aggression in real life situations. One report states, \\\"One of the most severe effects of violent video games on children is that the games are addictive and they tend to keep children engaged for a longer period. Many parents must have observed that their child becomes restless if he/ she does not play the specific game for the specific time every day. This can affect the child's mental stability and make him dependent on the game.\\\" Clearly the evidence shows that violence from video games can have devastating effects.\",\n \"Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems Video games of a violent nature tend to fail to offer many solutions to a problem. Most military shooters have no form of negotiation with enemies; players are asked to simply kill as many nameless terrorists as possible. Given this, social interaction problems can be caused because people are presented with problems and then told that they must be solved with violence instead of other methods. In other words, physical violence is portrayed as the first-choice (and often only-choice) solution to a conflict. This lack of portrayal of alternate solutions can stifle growth of other skills, especially amongst children and adolescents, specifically skills important to making friends and engaging in negotiation in times of conflict or pressure. Further, it encourages children to see people who oppose them as “others,” and thus presents them psychologically as enemies instead of as people who are simply different to the player and thus might have other grievances. This can lead to increases in aggression among players. This is especially true given the relatively simplistic portrayal of conflicts within areas such as the Middle East and Afghanistan.[1] [1] \\\"Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research\\\". apa.org. American Psychological Association. 27 September 2011.\",\n \"Video Games Cause Real-World Violence The problem with that argument is that you're giving video games as the only possible reason for violence ignoring the fact that many people who kill \\\"because of video games\\\" suffer from mental health issues, abusive families, bullying, etc.. To say that violent video games cause violence is to say that no other factors affect it. And, there is statistical evidence that video games do not affect violent behavior if you account for external factors such as the ones listed above. And statistical evidence is always more valid than circumstantial evidence, you will always be able to find someone that committed an act of violence because of whatever you can imagine, people have killed people over loud music. Does that mean that loud music causes violence? No! It means that people will use anything as a reason to kill one another.\",\n \"Media Violence is having a Negative Effect on today's Youth. Yes it may be poor parenting but the parent need to understand that if the child plays violent video games or watches a movie then the child will start to get worse and want to hurt people not always but it is believed that kids who play or watch violence will act violent with or without a parent to guide them it really is all on the kid to stop the violence they can play the game but to much of it and they will want to play the play or walk the walk.\",\n \"Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven. The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game. These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups. Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual.[1] Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process.\",\n \"Video games are making children more violent in nature. I believe that video games are shaping many children in a negative way. This is mainly because of games like modern warfare and grand theft auto (purely as an example here). These games -and ones of a similar genre- are introducing violence to a much younger audience than the intended target market of the games. The competitive side to these games and their harsh and explicit nature is teaching children to be a lot more violent towards one another: Even though this is not the specific aim of the game.\",\n \"Video Games cause violence Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about.)There is no evidence to support video games cause things such as murders or school shootings etc. Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc.\",\n \"Violent games lead to violent actions It may cause them to think that but they can help let out stress. You have no support to back up your opinion so give me the numbers my first debate had the numbers and proof I have now made my debate improved so argue with this: I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes make you violent ? No that\\\"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn\\\"t. But that\\\"s what some people actually believe, and today I\\\"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don\\\"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they\\\"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I\\\"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions because their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. And violence is lower in countries that play more video games. 2005 in Japan had 73 murders compared to the US's poor run of 2,279 just by teens. Basically what I\\\"m saying is that we could do a lot better Japan is one of the most populous countries in the world and they have the least murders. Video games actually stop people being violent . Per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the United States compared to $47 in Japan. You might think videogames are for kids but as an adult pro gamer you get millions even billions. I think as NZ we should start a gaming festival or competition at ASB Showgrounds Auckland every year. I believe that videogames have nothing to do with other people being violent.\",\n \"Religion causes more violence than video games Pro.. I have reasons to believe that you have not read my statements in full. But.. nonetheless: The following times magazine article discussing the video game violence has given insight onto the subject of the matter, drawing conclusions based based on studies in the US where children are becoming more and more violent due to playing video-games. If the young child (the teen) is exposed at such an early age to this type of violent video games then their personality and brain function changes as well, developing him into an aggressive adult. Now lets take this into consideration. Most of today's soldiers are trained through simulations, most of tactics and advanced weaponry are developed thorough simulation on a computer. If these simulations are being \\\"dumb\\\" down to a video game level, which is what most of today's war games are like (they collaborate with the military forces) to implement in their games in order to make them more realistic. You would argue that these game have not created any wars but such event as Columbine and many others [2] have created this internal war. Now lets look at how many fight there have been since the 2000's that involved teens took matters into their own hands and started killing people. That number will have to be very small since i was unable to find any that were documented. I believe that video games are developing an aggressive behavior in today's teens and even preteens (20+) which can impact their behaviors in the future. [1] http://time.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Violent video games are real danger to young minds. Paul Boxer. \\\"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\\\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \\\"As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer.\\\"\",\n \"Video Games do not Cause Violence Do video games cause violence? In a simple answer, yes. In the past 15 years, the number of gamers has gone up drastically due to both increased gaming quality and the new notions of multiplayer games, such as MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) games and simple 'LAN' games which allow you to play with a friend. Allow me to quote a news article. \\\"On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games.\\\" I'm sure everyone is aware that the PG rating on First Person Shooter games, or pretty much any game that contains violence or sex is literally just ink. Do people really think that kids underage pay attention to those ratings? Get with the modern world. Though it may be unfortunate, it's common knowledge that children participate in over 18 activities including not limited to these video games. It was only last year that an 8 year old shot and killed his caretaker (87 years old) after playing a particularly violent video game. It's people like that little boy who are most vulnerable to influence from video games and from adults who encourage that sort of behavior that are often encountered online. The real reason these games cause violence is because they are given to people who are sometimes mentally unhinged, and also to small children who can easily pirate them from the web. The facts state that these games are mentally damaging to many people. But the biggest problem of all lies in the age rating, because it means nothing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet children want to play those games more, to feel like a proper adult. Winning in a game is a childish notion of victory and defeat is the same. Those notions, however, have killed people in the past. That is proof enough that the games cause violence.\",\n \"video game violence First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.\",\n \"Video games encourage violent behavior In a nutshell, you state that the act of playing video games turns the players into illogical and induces stress, which causes violence. However, you must keep in mind the following: 1: A video game is played for entertainment. I'd like you to explain how games cause stress (Physical strain does not count. We are talking about mental strain, as that is the argument you are using here.). 2: If playing violent video games increases violent behavior in children, as your argument stated, then why is that South Korea, a country that plays over two times more video games than the United States has ZERO shootings out of a sample of 100,000? Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... (States that video games are intended for entertainment) [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... (States that video games have no correlation with youth violence, often associated with shootings/gun murders) If you have any other arguments to present, please do. Until then, I will await your response.\",\n \"Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children Thanks Con for this good topic. The following argument will have: Why Video Games, are Influencing, and Causing Violence amognst kids. Some Rebuttals on what Con had stated. Violent video games are causing children to have the mindset that, it ok to deal with your problem(s), in a anti-social way. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. http://videogames.procon.org... Con has stated examples of Violence in Children. \\\"Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot.\\\" \\\"I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. \\\" However these occurances are rare as it is. We dont see another replica of the Sandy Hook incident everyday. We dont see kids going out and shooting other people. BUT, the perpitrator, during the Sandy Hook shooting, was mentally ill! So this impared his ability to judge how realistic these games he was player were! So this brings the question -- Could he have thought he could did this no problem? I think YES. Cons argument basically says that Video Games arent causing EXTREME violnece suvch as shootings, and murders. But there are other types of small violence that are coming from video games that just arent making world headlines. Bullying is a type of Violence that is extermely commom amongst kids these days and these game can turn kids INTO bullys. Games are making kids change thier thoughts, on how to deal with small everyday problems. To hit or punch a kid because he mad you mad THATS VIOLENCE. This can be influenced because lets say this kid was playing Battlefield thother day and when he got mad at other player online, he KILLS them. So thought before he hits someone is \\\"I can kill people in Battlefield or Call of Duty! I can hit this kid\\\" Its a small form of violence, but it is still violence. Many children playing games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and especially GTA, are UNDER THE AGE OF 12. So many of these children are not realizing that in Real Life, you can not just punch someone and run away. You have to answer for what you did. In these games you would never see that. People kill other people, and think like its no big deal. Yes, this will not translate into someone going to shootout a scholl, BUT IT WILL TRASNLATE INTO KIDS COMMITING SAMLL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES. Con states: \\\"Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child.\\\" Not true. If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens) This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game.\",\n \"do video games cause viloence I think video games don't cause violence because kids have accepted the fact that it isn't real. They know the consequences of doing the things they see In video games and accept it. In a case ,involving a school shooter who played Dance Dance Revolution, it showed no connection between the game and killer. The case was given to a lieutenant who came up with the conclusion that games have no effect on kids.\",\n \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual.\",\n \"Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings. Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called ‘’Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime’’. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI’s nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book ‘’Crime and Criminals’’. He writes, ‘’If Bok’s right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?’’. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. \\\"Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime.\\\" N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. \\\"WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business.\\\" WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!\",\n \"Video Games Can Cause Violence The most common argument is that video games desensitize your reaction to violence, thus making you violent. But anyone who has the cognitive faculties to purchase, set up and operate modern games consoles won't have trouble with being desensitized. According to records held by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Office of Justice Programs, sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period. It should be the other way around, if that was true. although researchers have often noted the preference of violent video games by many school shooters, given that 97 percent of adolescents play video games such a preference is not overly surprising. It could similarly be argued that oxygen consumption predicts school shootings and crime, because most school shooters likely breathed within 10 seconds before their violent attack (Hey, maybe it does) I'll post more if you actually respond\",\n \"Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence,\\\" who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\\\" Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.\",\n \"In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Observation:The resolution is about the impact of violence in video games, not about the impact of video games themselves.What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockfeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, “People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.” (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller’s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, “It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…” (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime. AgressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause agression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that agression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certianly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Agression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough. The evidence:If violence in video games have caused violence in the past, it would make sense for the violence rates to go up as video game sales went up. However, just the opposite happened: We can see that as video game sales go up, violent crime went down. Now, I certianly won't argue that video games caused the violent crime to go down, but this evidence certianly makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games has caused real world violence.ConclusionHuey notes (1), \\\"...these games may seem repugnant but they do not harm the human brain or increase the likelihood of violent acts.\\\" Through the evidence I have presented, we can see that the violence in video games does not cause real world violence. Thus, I take the pro stance on this resolution.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.sfgate.com...(4) http://www.goodtherapy.org...#(5) Chasing the Dream, “The Economist” On to con...\",\n \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: \\\"The title of this argument is \\\"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\\\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.\\\" Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. \\\"School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few.\\\"[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...\",\n \"Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant \\\"Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]\\\" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.\",\n \"I think it does In my opinion violent video games do cause crime because I have heard news that there was a guy that was playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and he ran away from home. It was caused because he was playing Call of Duty when he was on Xbox live. He was missing for 2 weeks and his parents didn’t check up on him or cared about him. 2 weeks later they found the child dead in the forest. But I do think that it only accrues to different types of children. So I do think that violent video game cause crime.\",\n \"Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children's aggression. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet.\\\" Additionally, there's an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games. Violent video games don't teach kids moral consequences. \\\"If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way — you get extra points!\\\"\",\n \"Should kids play MA video games Ah, yes. The age-old philosophical question of whether or not kids should be able twist video game characters' heads right off of their bodies and watch the pixelated blood go spurting. Or watch them smoke cigarettes, or whatnot. What a deep query you have made, my son. The answer: The actual studies say there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior: . http://psycnet.apa.org...Case closed.\",\n \"Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Depending on age the answer differs. Little kids can be influenced by anything. There is a reason video games have ratings. (EC, E, E10+, T, M) CNN reports \\\"A new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive in real life.\\\" Violent Video Games can influence people to be violent.\",\n \"Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled.\",\n \"Violent games lead to violent actions I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes you violent ? No that\\\"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn\\\"t. But that\\\"s what some people actually believe, and today I\\\"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don\\\"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they\\\"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I\\\"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions and this is why: their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. I stand with video games for life.\",\n \"Violent games lead to violent actions Thank you very much nicksto99 for your helpful insight on this topic and the debate. This is what nicksto99 said: According to a meta-analysis done on video games; The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and pro-social behavior. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......). This article in the U.S National Library of Medecine strongly disproves Con's arguments. Con also uses the False Cause fallacy, saying that since Japanese people play more videos games and are less violent than Americans who play less of them, therefore their gaming tendencies reduce their violence. This blatant use of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc does not prove anything since it does not rely on any empirical data; drawing conclusions on two correlated tendencies that do not necessarily have causation between them. Indeed, the low levels of violence could be caused by the non-presence of illegal immigrants or guns in the country for example. This is not the only case of studies showing a correlation between violent video games, as seen by reputable news sources telling of how many mass murders have been influenced by violent videogames and have even used them to train themselves for the horrible acts they carry out. Just look it up.\",\n \"Video Games cause violence Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is \\\"Video games cause violence\\\", not \\\"All video games cause violence\\\". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --\",\n \"Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockefeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, “People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, paediatricians, and psychologists know better.” (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller’s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, “It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…” (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime.AggressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certainly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Aggression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough.Violence rates:Here is the most important point of this debate. Logically, if violence in video games significantly contribute to real world violence, violent crime rates would rise as video game sales rise. This, however, is untrue: Now, I don't claim that this decrease is due to video game sales (a lot of other factors could have affected the decline). However, this decrease makes mockery of the idea that video games have legitimately contributed to the rise of violence in society today (5). Video game's effect:Releasing AggressionStudies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes \\\"If you give them video games, they’ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we’d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There’s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other (6).\\\" The inmates clearly were able to release their aggression in a way that doesn't hurt other people. This can be applied to other people as well. Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids.Enjoyment of ViolenceThis is an important part of the debate. Many people don't become violent because of violence in video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they enjoy violence. In order for con to win this point, he must prove that the violence in video games causes the violence. A simple correlation between violent people and people that play violent video games is not enough.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.goodtherapy.org... (5) Chasing the Dream, “The Economist”(6) http://freakonomics.com...\",\n \"Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems The facts are against the premise again. Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011). The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking—all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do.[1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game’s storyline or outcome. [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257\",\n \"Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: 2 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from improve this\",\n \"Violent video games desensitise users Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2 1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily: 2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: improve this\",\n \"Video games make children More violent Do Violent Video Games Increase Aggression? Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both the short-term and long-term. Violent video games can also desensitize people to seeing aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behaviors such as helping another person and feeling empathy (the ability to understand others). The longer that individuals are exposed to violent video games, The more likely they are to have aggressive behaviors, Thoughts, And feelings. These effects have been seen in studies in both Eastern and Western countries. Although males spend more time than females playing violent video games, Violent video game exposure can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both sexes. The analysis of 24 studies from countries including the U. S. , Canada, Germany and Japan found those who played violent games such as \\\"Grand Theft Auto, \\\" \\\"Call of Duty\\\" and \\\"Manhunt\\\" were more likely to exhibit behavior such as being sent to the principal's office for fighting or hitting a non-family member. \\\"Although no single research project is definitive, Our research aims to provide the most current and compelling responses to key criticisms on this topic, \\\" said Jay Hull, Lead author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. \\\"Based on our findings, We feel it is clear that violent video game play is associated with subsequent increases in physical aggression, \\\" said Hull, Associate dean of faculty for the social sciences at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, And the Dartmouth Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Video game violence has been a hot-button issue for more than a decade. Interest in research on video games' potential for violence increased after it was learned Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, The two teenagers who committed the Columbine High School shooting, Played the first-person shooting computer game \\\"Doom. \\\" But in a 2011 Supreme Court decision overturning California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, The late Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed a link between the games and aggression. \\\"These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, And with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively, \\\" he wrote in the majority opinion. Since then, An American Psychological Association task force report in 2015 found a link between violent video games and increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence that violent games lead to criminal violence. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump convened a video game summit a month after the February shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Prior to that meeting, Trump said, \\\"I\\\"m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people\\\"s thoughts. \\\" The Dartmouth researchers sought to reduce confusion about research findings \\\" including disputes about the association between violent games and aggression \\\" with a finely structured meta-analysis. Those in the study who played violent games, Whether frequently or infrequently, Had an increase risk of aggressive behavior. The new research echoes Hull's previous finding that playing violent games equates to about twice the risk of being sent to the principal\\\"s office for fighting during an eight-month period, He said. A separate 2014 study he oversaw of violent video games in 2, 000 families is one of the 24 included in the meta-analysis. The effect is \\\"relatively small, But statistically reliable. The effect does exist, \\\" Hull said. While there's not research suggesting violent video games lead to criminal behavior, Hull's previous research suggests players may practice riskier behaviors such as reckless driving, Binge drinking, Smoking and unsafe sex. \\\"A lot of people ask, Do these games really cause these kids to behave aggressively? I would say that is one possibility, \\\" he said. \\\"The other possibility is that it's a really bad sign. If your kids are playing these games, Either these games are having a warping effect on right and wrong or they have a warped sense of right or wrong and that\\\"s why they are attracted to these games. Either way you should be concerned about it. \\\" Aggressive behavior is measured by scientists in a number of ways. Some studies looked at self-reports of hitting or pushing, And some looked at peer or teacher ratings on aggressive behaviors. Other studies looked at how likely an individual was to subject others to an unpleasant exposure to hot sauce or a loud noise after playing violent video games. Unfortunately, Few studies have been completed on violent video game exposure and aggression in children under age 10. There is also little information about the impact of violent video game exposure on minority children. There have not been many studies on the effects of different characteristics of video games, Such as perspective or plot. However, Some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence Do Violent Video Games Increase Violence? Violence is a form of aggression, But not all aggressive behaviors are violent. Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chances of later delinquency, Criminal behavior, Or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct, And require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also results in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, But there is no clear evidence to support that assumption. Policy In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018, Policymakers are again questioning the influence of violent video games. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) affirms that their rating system is effective, But the APA Task Force on Violent Media recommends that the ESRB revise their rating system to make the level of violence clearer. The Task Force also recommends that further research must be done using delinquency, Violence, And criminal behavior as outcomes to determine whether or not violent video games are linked to violence. Bottom Line Studies show that they make children more violent.\",\n \"Do Video Games Create Violence (Genius Hour) Video games do not cause children or any players to be violent, this is a myth. There are tons of studies that argue the case that video games are detrimental to our society but these studies only see and argue for one side of the spectrum.\",\n \"no violent video games don't cause violence So, for clarity, I'm arguing that violent video games CAN lead to violence. Here is an article for you to read http://liti4.wordpress.com... - in the article this 17 year old claims that he thought if he shot his parents they would respawn. Now if this guy is telling the truth, then that proves beyond doubt that the violent video game (Halo 3 in this case) was the cause of the violence, and even if he was lying, the reason that he shot his parents was because they WOULD NOT let him play Halo 3, so he killed them. This shows an addiction to the violent video game that allows for extraneous violence to occur, therefore proving that the violent video game caused violence, thus proving that violent video games CAN lead to violence. That is to say, violent video games do not ALWAYS cause violence, but CAN in some cases. Now, your argument used the term 'psyche', which is defined as the human soul. You claimed that violence is not caused by playing a violent video game, but by the person's soul. Therefore, burden of proof is on you to prove that humans have souls. If you cannot prove that humans have souls, then, as you have not given any other reason that violence may occur, you are accepting that kids who have played violent video games and then become violent are violent due to those violent video games. I look forward to your argument.\",\n \"The content of Video Games I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?\",\n \"violent video games should be banned You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted \\\"Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay\\\". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.\",\n \"Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression. Paul Boxer. \\\"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\\\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \\\"High-profile events such as teenagers getting inspired by the actions of a violent video game character can be tragic, but they also distract from the large body of knowledge that has accumulated on the impact of violent media on children. Since the early 1970s, scientists have observed very clear, frequently replicated and strikingly robust effects. In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films — or who play violent video games — are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations.\\\"\",\n \"no violent video games don't cause violence if a kid plays a violent video game and then develops violent behaviors its not because of the video game. you need to look into that childs psyche instead of the video games. i personally think that video games give the person an excuse to take action towards the violent thoughts that their minds fabricated on their own. there is obviously something wrong with the person if they go and do these things just because they play a game that does it. take it from me I'm a teenager who has suffered abuse and bullying. i have been diagnosed with major depression, adhd, and ocd. i have been in programs and stuff to help myself. i have performed self mutilation. and i play cod black ops every night. i am more intuned to becoming violent than normal kids without these issues. but I'm not violent aim one of the sweetest people i know\",\n \"Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior 1. Meta-analytic reviewsCon claims that meta-analytic reviews show that methodologically superior studies show that video games do cause violence. However, many meta-analysis studies which show that there is a link between video gaming and violence are plagued with publication bias and methodological problems, such as citing studies which were not published or selecting certain studies and ignoring others. (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...) 2. Non-Laboratory resultsA survey is not a study: it can be affected by the personal biases of teachers and students. As the teachers knew which students whose violent behaviors they were rating, the survey that pro cited was not sufficiently blinded. (http://drdouglas.org...) Also, many experts, parents, and paediatricians agree that violent video games do not cause violence. (http://www.theguardian.com...) If the survey that pro cited were to be counted as valid evidence, then this should be too.One of the methodological flaws of using labratory results is that the violent clips and video game content are often served to the groups of youth outside of their contexts; the entire narrative of the violent work of fiction was not provided. This is different than in real life situations. (http://www.independent.co.uk...)3. Crime RatesPro claims that crime rates decreased in spite of violent media becoming more popular. I propose an alternative idea: violent media has nothing to do with crime rates. Studies have shown that the one thing that correlates with crime is gasoling lead levels. (http://www.ricknevin.com...)\",\n \"Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as \\\"cool\\\" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...\",\n \"The content of Video Games We are now at our final round of debate. I'd like to summarize by saying while I agree there is no direct evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between violent video games and teen violence, we can NOT afford to think that having violent video games readily available for people of all ages does not pose certain degree of concern. The concern is it occupies the mind of immature and mentally unstable teenagers with aggressive thoughts and might trigger violent behavior, causing great harm to other people and demoralize the rest of society. Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the \\\"last straw on the back of the camel\\\" and played into their final act? One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?\",\n \"Video Games increase child violence Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book \\\"Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents\\\" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.\",\n \"Video Games Lead To Violence There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, \\\"Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain.\\\" While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.\",\n \"Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because \\\"it helps me get my anger out\\\" and 62% played because it \\\"helps me relax.\\\" Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.\",\n \"Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a ‘scary world’, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.\",\n \"There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases. 1Goldstein, 2001. 2Walsh, 2001.\",\n \"There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent. 1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology: 2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90. 3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. improve this\",\n \"Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'\",\n \"Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1. 1Senate Committee, 1993.\",\n \"should vilent video games be banned Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.\",\n \"Violent video games lead to violent behaivior I see you are still not specifying an age. But until you do, I will stick to children's age. But here is something for you. \\\"The question of whether children's participation in violent video games can lead to an increase in violent thoughts, emotions and behaviors has been resolved, and the conclusive answer is yes. Studies that have provided this answer are based on statistical comparisons between large groups of children who do or don't play violent video games. \\\" Also as i stated in my previous statement, why do you think there are ratings for games? Game designers even recognize that violence can influence people, especially children. Thank You. Now your argument.\",\n \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...\",\n \"Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.\",\n \"The content of Video Games No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.\",\n \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. The title of this argument is \\\"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\\\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.\",\n \"Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you\\\"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.\",\n \"Do games teach kids violence. Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...\",\n \"The content of Video Games It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.\",\n \"Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Many researchers (Ask, 1999; Funk, 1993, 1995; Provenzo, 1991) conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who probably already are habitually violent.\",\n \"Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is \\\" Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes \\\" A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":34,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Is golf a sport?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["does golf is a real sport\nGolf is already officially categorized as a sport!","Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\nThanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. \" This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is \"nothing can be more of a sport than a sport\". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be \"more of a sport\" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that \"there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament\". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including \"paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. \" My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks \" Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? \", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as \"competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity\" I accept this definition. He says that \"Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit\" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that \"It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course\" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any \"general vicinity\". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that \"the distance is irrelevant. \", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are \"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that \"In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object\". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult \" to kill it as it is running away\", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...","Golf is a sport\nFor my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.","Golf is a sport\ngolf is a sport no doubt. it takes pure skill to be able to play the sport and if you can go pro in a activity then it should be a sport","Golf is a sport\nHow is golf a sport???? All you do is hit a golf ball on a field like a snobby brat!!!! Nobody can cheer for you and you are quiet and standing in the hot sun!!!!! Whatever happens on golf that is exciting and will get your heartbeat pumping?? Yeah he hit a hole in one ohhhh what a day to watch!!!!! So I'm ready for this debate are you!!!","Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\nMr. Pote I am an eighth grader from Kansas and have had no formal debate class or any class for that matter so I will try my hardest to be formal and give you an opposing case (this is also my first debate ever) so here we go. My opponent gives the definition of a sport and says that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\" I agree with this and will not oppose this statement. Contention two:(c) \"Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong.\" (5) \"Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win.\" Golf is a game played in tournaments most of the time (unless you are playing a single game which is not how the professionals play) Ping Pong is also a sport that is played in tournaments so therefore there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament. if a tournament in golf consists of 25 people and a ping pong tournament consists of 25 people, ping pong is actually the harder game to consistently when at because there are more chances for mistakes because you will have to play more than just one game but multiple games to be the winner of the tournament. \"Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables.\" golf does have more variables than ping pong but there are also variables in ping pong such as paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org... \"Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful.\" SKILL-competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit so that is what I would like to zero in on. It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course. Lets compare the size of one hole to the size of a tennis table. My opponent states that the balls are of about the same size and equal in shape. That just means that you have to hit a bigger ball (in comparison to the playing space) in a smaller space and more accurate at that. Also you have to hit a heavier ball with a heavier club so the distance is irrelevant. \"This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves\" I agree these are two different things \"Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body.\" In ping pong you must move around constantly to keep a ball in play in golf on the other hand you move to the tee and swing then jump in the golf court and ride to where the ball is that is not very physical at all. I disagree you must hit a golf ball with equal force as you do a ping pong ball because. F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong scientifically by your standards more force is required for ping pong so the statement of mine saying \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body\" is correct! That does not include the constant motion either. http://www.streetdirectory.com... http://www.ajdesigner.com... http://golf.about.com... http://hypertextbook.com... http://www.jayandwanda.com... \"I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\"\" Once again I agree that is no more of a sport than golf but also once again the size of the playing field determines accuracy which is the definition of skill. In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object. take hunting for example it is easier to hit a deer that does not know you are there to shoot him than it does to kill it as it is running away. http://dictionary.reference.com...","Bowling is a sport.\n\"Yet track is still a sport. A similar situation occurs with other individualized sports such as swimming, golf, field events such as discus or shot put, etc.\" Track and the other activities are not sports. \"Also, tournament bowling often includes what is referred to as “Baker games” which require teams, not individuals (http://bowling.about.com......). New aspects come into play in this format, such as lineups, less frames bowled, and teamwork. Therefore, you can’t receive a full experience of bowling by yourself.\" Changing the format of a game does not change the basic elements of that game. \"Also, there is a major difference between those “bowling for fun” and those who are bowling competitively. You claim that they are the same when you say “If, as you state, drinking beer while throwing the ball at the pins for fun does not constitute enough competition to qualify bowling as a sport; adding higher-skill level players and monetary rewards for winning doesn't change this. “ First, you don’t require direct competition 100% of the time, as referred to in the previous argument. Next, there is such a big difference between the two such that they can be considered two separate activities.\" This debate is on whether bowling is a sport; not whether professional bowling is a different activity than recreational bowling.\"A sport is a sport if and only if it meets all the requirements: physical and mental skill, athleticism (training yourself physically and mentally to perform more capably and to improve your skill), competition, and strategy. All the other activities you mentioned are not sports because they do not meet all the requirements.\" In your first argument you had failed to mention a sport needed to meet all those requirements; you just listed attributes of bowling and said it was a sport. I wasn't trying to imply that any of those activities were sports. All your attributes referring to bowlers are irrelevant. I reiterate: A sport is able to be played by anyone who; knows the rules, has the equipment, access to the proper setting, and the requisite amount of participants. Skill doesn't come into play. Even at the highest level of any sport there are players of different skill levels. You wouldn't say that two professional baseball players are playing games of different ‘degrees of sport’ because they have different batting averages. An activity either is or isn’t a sport. If recreational bowling was fundamentally different from professional bowling, they would have different names, not different qualifiers. We can see that the participants of an activity don't decide if it is a sport or not. It is only the elements of an activity that determine if it is a sport. Here, in turn, I must apologize to my opponent; I went back and reread my previous round, and I seem to have left off an aspect of a sport. A sport requires both offensive and defensive strategy, which is why all the activities you mention in your first paragraph aren't sports either. Football, baseball, soccer, cricket, hockey, tennis, lacrosse, and polo are all sports because they have athletes competing directly against each other with both offensive and defensive strategies. The participants of sports can physically affect their opponetnt's performances. Activities like golf, swimming, track and field events, and bowling are games of compared performances. \"I will use the common phrase, “If it looks like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck.” Bowling has all the requirements to be considered a sport. Therefore, how can it be considered that it isn’t a sport?\" I think the reason for your confusion about what bowling is can be illustrated by looking at your closing statement. The problem with that phrase is that, it is a 'common phrase'. The quote that that phrase is based on is: \"I can’t prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.\" -Emil Mazey, the secretary-treasurer of the United Automobile Workers for 33 years, said at a labor meeting in 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org... People take an actual quote, or meaning of a word, and simplify it, making it more general. It is a problem of discarding precision for ease. This results in common phrases and common definitions. They are close enough to get a general idea across, but lack the specificity of their actual meaning.I would like to, once again, thank my opponent for posting this debate.I will say, in closing, although many might assume bowling is a sport; if you take the time to look beyond the common concept, you will see bowling, while a fine game, is not a sport.","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill\nFor the time that Pro was here he put up a good argument, Pro if you see this please make another account & add me we can debate again about this. But also just because Pro is not here doesn't mean I'm going to just stop debating, I'm a winner I want to win this debate. Through a boxers mentality he or she has to constantly keep in mind & that he can get hit or dropped in a blink of an eye. Boxers fight from 2-3 minutes & must be aware & cautious at ALL times, but in golf you only have to think for about 30 seconds because I'm assuming that's the average time a golfer uses to swing the club. Is the boxer going to uppercut to the gut, or jab 4 times to the face? If a boxer gets hit hard just one time this can take away his confidence because it can make him question \"can I keep up with him?\" or if you are giving your full force on every punch you throw & you see your punches are not phasing his or her opponent this can make the boxer question his own strength, for example: \"Are my punches that hard? Am I throwing them hard enough\"? This can make the boxer throw more punches & drain his or her stamina.","Hockey is a better sport than football.\nIn the world of sports, it is clear that there are certain sports that take more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals then other sports. In the argument that hockey is better than football, it is clear that hockey takes more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals than football, overall and in general.","Gaming should be taken more seriously and be considered a real sport.\nThe point that I was trying to get across when saying Battlefront is a casual game is that you said that you played the game and got to a high level fairly quickly, and therefore said there was no skill in the game, which is entirely untrue. I concede that Battlefront does not require much skill, but like I said, it is a casual game. Casual games are not meant to be hard or difficult, they are just meant to be fun. You then go on to say that \"just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't sport?\" Golf is meant to be a sport, but it can be taken casually as well which brings me onto you continuing to insist that button mashing is all gaming is. If that were true, then I could say that hitting a ball with a stick is all Golf is, but as I said previously, there is more to it than just that. If you want to play Golf competitively, you have to know things like how the wind affects the ball, and many other factors that I do not know of as I do not play Golf - it isn't really something I'm very interested in. As with football (or soccer as you call it), yes it's a sport, but it is non-contact sport. Which means that if you are talking about contact sports, you wouldn't include football as it is not that kind of sport, just how I do not include Battlefront as it is not the kind of game I am talking about. Button mashing isn't all it takes to play a video game. I do see your logic and your reasoning, but it is very flawed. Button mashing would be just that - mashing all the buttons with no thought or clear purpose. Maybe there's a quick time event that requires you to mash a certain button, but if you went into a competitive match of CS:GO and simply mashed all the buttons when you saw someone, you would die very quickly. As I stated previously, the definition of skill is being good at something, and the kind skill required to play CS:GO and to play Golf are quite different. In CS:GO, you need to react faster than your opponent and have the skill to be accurate enough to land most of your shots on their body and kill them before they can kill you. You need to know how grenades will bounce of off surfaces so you know the best angles at which the throw them. You need to know how to counter each weapon in the game so as to minimise the chances of getting killed by them. In Golf, you need to know wind patterns, you need to know the right pitch at which to hit the ball, and many other things that again, I do not know. My point here is that pressing the right things at the right time is very different to button mashing which will get you nowhere. I have never played rugby before as, again, it is not something I particularly enjoy, be it real life or video game. However, I do understand that playing rugby in real life is a lot harder than playing rugby on a video game, however every rugby game out there is a casual game meant for fun, so it is not going to be very hard. If a rugby game was made targeting the hardcore gamers, it would include mechanics to suit that and button mashing would be out of the equation. It would be hard and it would need skill. You would have to know what buttons to press and when, and it would punish you for making a mistake, just like real rugby would. You go on to say that the skill CS:GO players is laughable. Well, let me ask you a question: How many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played? Just like how you said that if you were to pit me against professional rugby players, I wouldn't stand a chance, the same is true for you. You simply would not stand a chance because yes, you can learn how to play quickly (the whole point of tutorials), but that doesn't mean you can compete against Fnatic or other professional teams. These are people that know the ins and outs of the game and know just what to do, when to do it, and how to do it to near perfection. Yes, you could sit down some rugby players and they'll learn how to play in a minute (again, the whole point of tutorials), but if you gave CS:GO players and a gun and told them to shoot a target, they would learn pretty quickly how to control the gun and hit the target because they are much smarter than you give them credit for. I used the example of Snooker to try and tell you that you need to look beyond the surface because Snooker is something I know and love and so I can talk about confidently and know about I'm talking about, and it's a real life example of a sport that if you look at it just on the surface (like what you're doing with video games) it's very basic and technically shouldn't be a sport, but when you look at all the different aspects and requirements, you can see that Snooker is actually quite complex and requires a high level of skill. You say that you laught at the fact that I say there is strategy in CS:GO, and once again I ask you, how many times have you played CS:GO competitively, or even watch players play on YouTube? If you were to watch the right people, you would see that good players communicate and form plans. For example, you may throw a smoke and then have one person flank and wait behind enemy lines, and then either give a distraction for the person behind the smoke to rush, or wait for one or more of the enemy to go into the smoke to see what's behind there. Sometimes 3 or 4 people can be behind that smoke to ambush the people they they know are going to come through eventually. Sometimes, it could be a mere distraction so that they are focused on the smoke, thinking some people are going to rush through, only to come behind them and attack where they aren't looking. I have had cases where good communication has led to a pincer movement and won us the game because the enemies attention is split between two attacking groups. I understand your reasoning for your disdain towards gaming, but it's simply not fair to judge gaming the way you do. You can't really compare games to real life and say there's no skill in doing x because doing y does this and that, because they are two very different things each with their own kind of skill. To compare them is to compare Star Trek to Star Wars and say which one is better. They both go about the sci-fi theme very differently. One likes to be more scientific about it, the other likes to be more fun and action filled.","does golf is a real sport\nthe real deffinition of a sport is: all game that include physical exercise. so golf is just a game not a sport","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill\nI can see how my aforementioned statements can be taken as me saying boxing takes no mental skill, that is not my opinion. Yes the pressure of a crowd, does a lot to a athlete mentally, but as u said, it can equally be said that no crowd can create the same mental strain. Without a crowd, there is no way to distract yourself from the millions of things going on in your mind. My opponent stated,\"Mayweather just got knocked out, through his mental state of mind how is he gonna come back? Does he come back swinging harder?...\". If mayweather was knocked out he doesn't have to think anymore because the fight is over. This brings me to my point, in Golf there is no premature end. Yes u can replace the ball that you hit in the water, but you have to continue your round thinking about what had just gone wrong. However there is not just the crowd there to add mental stress there are also elements such as weather to take into account, unlike in boxing. In golf, you constantly are at the mercy of mother nature and she is very unpredictable. Dealing with 20mph right to left winds is definitely mentally taxing, especially if u are one stroke back at a major championship. Remember u are trying to get a small ball into a slightly larger hole, up to around 600 yards away, there is a lot that can go wrong in that stretch. So I respond to you saying i'm not educated in the sport of boxing, with have u ever played 18 holes, let alone 72 holes, i doubt it because you would understand the constant mental stress. So you my dear sir are not educated in the sport of golf","Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\nThanks again for the debate, it certainly has been fun. My opponent starts of his last round with a counter argument to my 450 tee offs argument. He calculates the number 21,168, which I will accept. 21,168 divided by 450 is 47.04, so there are 47.04 times as many swings in ping pong as there are in golf. I'll plug in both the force from swinging a ping pong paddle/golf club and ping pong ball/golf ball. Newtons are, as I quoted in my second round:\"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\" This means that we must plug in kilograms, not grams. Ping pong paddle: 77 GRAMS x 1.875 m/s2 which is equal to .077 KILOGRAMS x 1.875 m/s2. This is .144375 Newtons. Golf club:115 GRAMS x 78 m/s2 which is equal to .115 KILOGRAMS x 78 m/s2. This is 8.970 Newtons. If we divide the force to swing a golf club (8.970) by the force to swing a ping pong paddle (.144375) we get 62.129870. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to swing a golf club 450 times than to swing a ping pong paddle 21,168 times. I'll plug in the new numbers that my opponent got for a ping pong ball and golf ball, which I accept. .0050625 Newtons for the ping pong ball. 3.58254 Newtons for the golf ball. 3.58254 divided by .0050625 is 707.6622222. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to hit a golf ball 450 times than to hit a ping pong ball 21,168 times. (1), checked with (2) My opponent concedes that there are more variables affecting golf than ping pong, on top of the increased amount of force required to swing a golf club and hit a golf ball. I cannot assign a number value to these variables, because they are variables, but they do make it more difficult to consistently win golf. My opponent even says \" I will agree that variables lead to inaccuracy but once again no variables can affect the outcome of a tournament by that much.\" which shows that variables make it harder to play golf, but by a small/unknown amount. I agree that the hole in one \"is a rarity of golf\", but it was just an example to show that it requires more accuracy to hit a ball a farther distance with the same accuracy. I agree that \"this \"incredible accuracy\" is not complete skill as in all sports luck is involved\", but that means that luck is also involved in ping pong, so ping pong is not any more of a sport than golf. The statement \"in all sports luck is involved\" negates the resolution, and my opponent said it, not me. My opponent's next argument is about the math, which I went over above. My opponent's last argument is that \" ping pong balls move in different directions than just strait\", and I agree with this, but he has not given a number value, similar to how I could not give a number value to the variables affecting golf. It is not possible to show that ping pong is harder than golf when we have an unknown value making it more difficult on each side. We cannot weigh EITHER unknown value as greater than the other, so the resolution must be negated. Conclusion: My opponent has not offered any arguments against my first contention or my subpoints a) or b), as I stated in my second round. My first contention is very important because I defined a sport as a noun and argued that nouns could not be more of themselves than the same noun. In other words, as my opponent agreed with, \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\" This negates the resolution, if they are equal sports then ping pong cannot be more of a sport than golf, they are equal. My subpoints a) and b) were mainly for clarification, so it doesn't really matter that much that my opponent agreed with them. The voting issues in this debate (as I see them) should be: 1. A sport cannot be \"more of a sport\" than another sport because sport is a noun. My opponent agreed with this. 2. The Force associated with playing each sport, which sport puts more stress on the body due to the forces. 3. Which sport takes more accuracy. 4. The variables affecting golf make golf a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. 5. The moving ping pong ball makes ping pong a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. I believe that I have won on the majority of these arguments and I urge you to vote negative. (1)-http://www.ajdesigner.com... (2)-http://calculator.com... Thanks for the debate, Witty, it's been fun.","NASCAR is a sport\nWhoever said golf was a sport? There simply isn't enough athleticism involved in NASCAR for it to be a sport. its not just a matter of strength but one of physical exertion and ability. NASCAR isn't primarily dependent on atheltic ability. Under your interpretation things like darts and shuffleboard become sports. NASCAR isn't an athletic activity. Coordination is a mental ability. There is virtually no atheleticism involved and therefore isn't a sport.","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill\nLets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, \"I just lost the tournament\", or \"I'm such an idiot\". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked.","Dancing is a sport\nI think that dancing is a sport by which you move your body and it involves physical movements rather than sitting there and doing nothing it has a point in life like sports does","Golf is the hardest sport\nGolf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time.","Color guard should be considered a sport\nI will first start this round by asking you questions: Have you ever been to a guard competition? Do you know anyone who had done guard? The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. My opponent said that color guard requires SOME level of athletic prowess and that is not true. If in color guard you must have to skill and athleticism, if you don't you will not succeed and not become the winner. Because it is not considered a sport not much respect and admiration is given to it, so it needs to be to get the respect and admiration it deserves.","does golf is a real sport\ni think golf is not a real sport, because you dont make a physical exercise.","Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\nNegative case: Definition: Sport-noun: 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be \"more of a sport\" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is \"more of a sport\" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. \" and \"golf on the other hand is a SPORT\" then they agree that both Ping Pong and golf are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are \"often of a competitive nature\", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: \"Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. \"(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables. Affirmation's case: My opponent did not define any terms, so as of now my definitions are the only definitions usable in this debate. My opponent's first claim is that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. \" Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful. Golf also requires more endurance than Ping Pong. Golf requires more strength than Ping Pong and therefore requires more endurance on a second by second basis. My opponent's second claim is that \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves. Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body. My opponent's last claim is that \" A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving. \" I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\" (1)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...","Golf is a sport\nPeople can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled \"Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport,\" published on cbssports.com: \"Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible.\" Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled \"Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.,\" published on the Huffington Post website: \"Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But \"no walking required\"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf."],"string":"[\n \"does golf is a real sport\\nGolf is already officially categorized as a sport!\",\n \"Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\\nThanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that \\\"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. \\\" This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is \\\"nothing can be more of a sport than a sport\\\". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be \\\"more of a sport\\\" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that \\\"there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament\\\". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including \\\"paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. \\\" My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks \\\" Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? \\\", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as \\\"competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity\\\" I accept this definition. He says that \\\"Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit\\\" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that \\\"It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course\\\" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any \\\"general vicinity\\\". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that \\\"the distance is irrelevant. \\\", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are \\\"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\\\"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that \\\"In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object\\\". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult \\\" to kill it as it is running away\\\", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Golf is a sport\\nFor my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.\",\n \"Golf is a sport\\ngolf is a sport no doubt. it takes pure skill to be able to play the sport and if you can go pro in a activity then it should be a sport\",\n \"Golf is a sport\\nHow is golf a sport???? All you do is hit a golf ball on a field like a snobby brat!!!! Nobody can cheer for you and you are quiet and standing in the hot sun!!!!! Whatever happens on golf that is exciting and will get your heartbeat pumping?? Yeah he hit a hole in one ohhhh what a day to watch!!!!! So I'm ready for this debate are you!!!\",\n \"Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\\nMr. Pote I am an eighth grader from Kansas and have had no formal debate class or any class for that matter so I will try my hardest to be formal and give you an opposing case (this is also my first debate ever) so here we go. My opponent gives the definition of a sport and says that \\\"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\\\" I agree with this and will not oppose this statement. Contention two:(c) \\\"Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong.\\\" (5) \\\"Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win.\\\" Golf is a game played in tournaments most of the time (unless you are playing a single game which is not how the professionals play) Ping Pong is also a sport that is played in tournaments so therefore there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament. if a tournament in golf consists of 25 people and a ping pong tournament consists of 25 people, ping pong is actually the harder game to consistently when at because there are more chances for mistakes because you will have to play more than just one game but multiple games to be the winner of the tournament. \\\"Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables.\\\" golf does have more variables than ping pong but there are also variables in ping pong such as paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org... \\\"Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful.\\\" SKILL-competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit so that is what I would like to zero in on. It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course. Lets compare the size of one hole to the size of a tennis table. My opponent states that the balls are of about the same size and equal in shape. That just means that you have to hit a bigger ball (in comparison to the playing space) in a smaller space and more accurate at that. Also you have to hit a heavier ball with a heavier club so the distance is irrelevant. \\\"This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \\\"any one\\\" can succeed in. \\\"any one\\\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves\\\" I agree these are two different things \\\"Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body.\\\" In ping pong you must move around constantly to keep a ball in play in golf on the other hand you move to the tee and swing then jump in the golf court and ride to where the ball is that is not very physical at all. I disagree you must hit a golf ball with equal force as you do a ping pong ball because. F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong scientifically by your standards more force is required for ping pong so the statement of mine saying \\\"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body\\\" is correct! That does not include the constant motion either. http://www.streetdirectory.com... http://www.ajdesigner.com... http://golf.about.com... http://hypertextbook.com... http://www.jayandwanda.com... \\\"I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \\\"more of a sport\\\"\\\" Once again I agree that is no more of a sport than golf but also once again the size of the playing field determines accuracy which is the definition of skill. In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object. take hunting for example it is easier to hit a deer that does not know you are there to shoot him than it does to kill it as it is running away. http://dictionary.reference.com...\",\n \"Bowling is a sport.\\n\\\"Yet track is still a sport. A similar situation occurs with other individualized sports such as swimming, golf, field events such as discus or shot put, etc.\\\" Track and the other activities are not sports. \\\"Also, tournament bowling often includes what is referred to as “Baker games” which require teams, not individuals (http://bowling.about.com......). New aspects come into play in this format, such as lineups, less frames bowled, and teamwork. Therefore, you can’t receive a full experience of bowling by yourself.\\\" Changing the format of a game does not change the basic elements of that game. \\\"Also, there is a major difference between those “bowling for fun” and those who are bowling competitively. You claim that they are the same when you say “If, as you state, drinking beer while throwing the ball at the pins for fun does not constitute enough competition to qualify bowling as a sport; adding higher-skill level players and monetary rewards for winning doesn't change this. “ First, you don’t require direct competition 100% of the time, as referred to in the previous argument. Next, there is such a big difference between the two such that they can be considered two separate activities.\\\" This debate is on whether bowling is a sport; not whether professional bowling is a different activity than recreational bowling.\\\"A sport is a sport if and only if it meets all the requirements: physical and mental skill, athleticism (training yourself physically and mentally to perform more capably and to improve your skill), competition, and strategy. All the other activities you mentioned are not sports because they do not meet all the requirements.\\\" In your first argument you had failed to mention a sport needed to meet all those requirements; you just listed attributes of bowling and said it was a sport. I wasn't trying to imply that any of those activities were sports. All your attributes referring to bowlers are irrelevant. I reiterate: A sport is able to be played by anyone who; knows the rules, has the equipment, access to the proper setting, and the requisite amount of participants. Skill doesn't come into play. Even at the highest level of any sport there are players of different skill levels. You wouldn't say that two professional baseball players are playing games of different ‘degrees of sport’ because they have different batting averages. An activity either is or isn’t a sport. If recreational bowling was fundamentally different from professional bowling, they would have different names, not different qualifiers. We can see that the participants of an activity don't decide if it is a sport or not. It is only the elements of an activity that determine if it is a sport. Here, in turn, I must apologize to my opponent; I went back and reread my previous round, and I seem to have left off an aspect of a sport. A sport requires both offensive and defensive strategy, which is why all the activities you mention in your first paragraph aren't sports either. Football, baseball, soccer, cricket, hockey, tennis, lacrosse, and polo are all sports because they have athletes competing directly against each other with both offensive and defensive strategies. The participants of sports can physically affect their opponetnt's performances. Activities like golf, swimming, track and field events, and bowling are games of compared performances. \\\"I will use the common phrase, “If it looks like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck.” Bowling has all the requirements to be considered a sport. Therefore, how can it be considered that it isn’t a sport?\\\" I think the reason for your confusion about what bowling is can be illustrated by looking at your closing statement. The problem with that phrase is that, it is a 'common phrase'. The quote that that phrase is based on is: \\\"I can’t prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.\\\" -Emil Mazey, the secretary-treasurer of the United Automobile Workers for 33 years, said at a labor meeting in 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org... People take an actual quote, or meaning of a word, and simplify it, making it more general. It is a problem of discarding precision for ease. This results in common phrases and common definitions. They are close enough to get a general idea across, but lack the specificity of their actual meaning.I would like to, once again, thank my opponent for posting this debate.I will say, in closing, although many might assume bowling is a sport; if you take the time to look beyond the common concept, you will see bowling, while a fine game, is not a sport.\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill\\nFor the time that Pro was here he put up a good argument, Pro if you see this please make another account & add me we can debate again about this. But also just because Pro is not here doesn't mean I'm going to just stop debating, I'm a winner I want to win this debate. Through a boxers mentality he or she has to constantly keep in mind & that he can get hit or dropped in a blink of an eye. Boxers fight from 2-3 minutes & must be aware & cautious at ALL times, but in golf you only have to think for about 30 seconds because I'm assuming that's the average time a golfer uses to swing the club. Is the boxer going to uppercut to the gut, or jab 4 times to the face? If a boxer gets hit hard just one time this can take away his confidence because it can make him question \\\"can I keep up with him?\\\" or if you are giving your full force on every punch you throw & you see your punches are not phasing his or her opponent this can make the boxer question his own strength, for example: \\\"Are my punches that hard? Am I throwing them hard enough\\\"? This can make the boxer throw more punches & drain his or her stamina.\",\n \"Hockey is a better sport than football.\\nIn the world of sports, it is clear that there are certain sports that take more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals then other sports. In the argument that hockey is better than football, it is clear that hockey takes more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals than football, overall and in general.\",\n \"Gaming should be taken more seriously and be considered a real sport.\\nThe point that I was trying to get across when saying Battlefront is a casual game is that you said that you played the game and got to a high level fairly quickly, and therefore said there was no skill in the game, which is entirely untrue. I concede that Battlefront does not require much skill, but like I said, it is a casual game. Casual games are not meant to be hard or difficult, they are just meant to be fun. You then go on to say that \\\"just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't sport?\\\" Golf is meant to be a sport, but it can be taken casually as well which brings me onto you continuing to insist that button mashing is all gaming is. If that were true, then I could say that hitting a ball with a stick is all Golf is, but as I said previously, there is more to it than just that. If you want to play Golf competitively, you have to know things like how the wind affects the ball, and many other factors that I do not know of as I do not play Golf - it isn't really something I'm very interested in. As with football (or soccer as you call it), yes it's a sport, but it is non-contact sport. Which means that if you are talking about contact sports, you wouldn't include football as it is not that kind of sport, just how I do not include Battlefront as it is not the kind of game I am talking about. Button mashing isn't all it takes to play a video game. I do see your logic and your reasoning, but it is very flawed. Button mashing would be just that - mashing all the buttons with no thought or clear purpose. Maybe there's a quick time event that requires you to mash a certain button, but if you went into a competitive match of CS:GO and simply mashed all the buttons when you saw someone, you would die very quickly. As I stated previously, the definition of skill is being good at something, and the kind skill required to play CS:GO and to play Golf are quite different. In CS:GO, you need to react faster than your opponent and have the skill to be accurate enough to land most of your shots on their body and kill them before they can kill you. You need to know how grenades will bounce of off surfaces so you know the best angles at which the throw them. You need to know how to counter each weapon in the game so as to minimise the chances of getting killed by them. In Golf, you need to know wind patterns, you need to know the right pitch at which to hit the ball, and many other things that again, I do not know. My point here is that pressing the right things at the right time is very different to button mashing which will get you nowhere. I have never played rugby before as, again, it is not something I particularly enjoy, be it real life or video game. However, I do understand that playing rugby in real life is a lot harder than playing rugby on a video game, however every rugby game out there is a casual game meant for fun, so it is not going to be very hard. If a rugby game was made targeting the hardcore gamers, it would include mechanics to suit that and button mashing would be out of the equation. It would be hard and it would need skill. You would have to know what buttons to press and when, and it would punish you for making a mistake, just like real rugby would. You go on to say that the skill CS:GO players is laughable. Well, let me ask you a question: How many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played? Just like how you said that if you were to pit me against professional rugby players, I wouldn't stand a chance, the same is true for you. You simply would not stand a chance because yes, you can learn how to play quickly (the whole point of tutorials), but that doesn't mean you can compete against Fnatic or other professional teams. These are people that know the ins and outs of the game and know just what to do, when to do it, and how to do it to near perfection. Yes, you could sit down some rugby players and they'll learn how to play in a minute (again, the whole point of tutorials), but if you gave CS:GO players and a gun and told them to shoot a target, they would learn pretty quickly how to control the gun and hit the target because they are much smarter than you give them credit for. I used the example of Snooker to try and tell you that you need to look beyond the surface because Snooker is something I know and love and so I can talk about confidently and know about I'm talking about, and it's a real life example of a sport that if you look at it just on the surface (like what you're doing with video games) it's very basic and technically shouldn't be a sport, but when you look at all the different aspects and requirements, you can see that Snooker is actually quite complex and requires a high level of skill. You say that you laught at the fact that I say there is strategy in CS:GO, and once again I ask you, how many times have you played CS:GO competitively, or even watch players play on YouTube? If you were to watch the right people, you would see that good players communicate and form plans. For example, you may throw a smoke and then have one person flank and wait behind enemy lines, and then either give a distraction for the person behind the smoke to rush, or wait for one or more of the enemy to go into the smoke to see what's behind there. Sometimes 3 or 4 people can be behind that smoke to ambush the people they they know are going to come through eventually. Sometimes, it could be a mere distraction so that they are focused on the smoke, thinking some people are going to rush through, only to come behind them and attack where they aren't looking. I have had cases where good communication has led to a pincer movement and won us the game because the enemies attention is split between two attacking groups. I understand your reasoning for your disdain towards gaming, but it's simply not fair to judge gaming the way you do. You can't really compare games to real life and say there's no skill in doing x because doing y does this and that, because they are two very different things each with their own kind of skill. To compare them is to compare Star Trek to Star Wars and say which one is better. They both go about the sci-fi theme very differently. One likes to be more scientific about it, the other likes to be more fun and action filled.\",\n \"does golf is a real sport\\nthe real deffinition of a sport is: all game that include physical exercise. so golf is just a game not a sport\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill\\nI can see how my aforementioned statements can be taken as me saying boxing takes no mental skill, that is not my opinion. Yes the pressure of a crowd, does a lot to a athlete mentally, but as u said, it can equally be said that no crowd can create the same mental strain. Without a crowd, there is no way to distract yourself from the millions of things going on in your mind. My opponent stated,\\\"Mayweather just got knocked out, through his mental state of mind how is he gonna come back? Does he come back swinging harder?...\\\". If mayweather was knocked out he doesn't have to think anymore because the fight is over. This brings me to my point, in Golf there is no premature end. Yes u can replace the ball that you hit in the water, but you have to continue your round thinking about what had just gone wrong. However there is not just the crowd there to add mental stress there are also elements such as weather to take into account, unlike in boxing. In golf, you constantly are at the mercy of mother nature and she is very unpredictable. Dealing with 20mph right to left winds is definitely mentally taxing, especially if u are one stroke back at a major championship. Remember u are trying to get a small ball into a slightly larger hole, up to around 600 yards away, there is a lot that can go wrong in that stretch. So I respond to you saying i'm not educated in the sport of boxing, with have u ever played 18 holes, let alone 72 holes, i doubt it because you would understand the constant mental stress. So you my dear sir are not educated in the sport of golf\",\n \"Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\\nThanks again for the debate, it certainly has been fun. My opponent starts of his last round with a counter argument to my 450 tee offs argument. He calculates the number 21,168, which I will accept. 21,168 divided by 450 is 47.04, so there are 47.04 times as many swings in ping pong as there are in golf. I'll plug in both the force from swinging a ping pong paddle/golf club and ping pong ball/golf ball. Newtons are, as I quoted in my second round:\\\"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\\\" This means that we must plug in kilograms, not grams. Ping pong paddle: 77 GRAMS x 1.875 m/s2 which is equal to .077 KILOGRAMS x 1.875 m/s2. This is .144375 Newtons. Golf club:115 GRAMS x 78 m/s2 which is equal to .115 KILOGRAMS x 78 m/s2. This is 8.970 Newtons. If we divide the force to swing a golf club (8.970) by the force to swing a ping pong paddle (.144375) we get 62.129870. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to swing a golf club 450 times than to swing a ping pong paddle 21,168 times. I'll plug in the new numbers that my opponent got for a ping pong ball and golf ball, which I accept. .0050625 Newtons for the ping pong ball. 3.58254 Newtons for the golf ball. 3.58254 divided by .0050625 is 707.6622222. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to hit a golf ball 450 times than to hit a ping pong ball 21,168 times. (1), checked with (2) My opponent concedes that there are more variables affecting golf than ping pong, on top of the increased amount of force required to swing a golf club and hit a golf ball. I cannot assign a number value to these variables, because they are variables, but they do make it more difficult to consistently win golf. My opponent even says \\\" I will agree that variables lead to inaccuracy but once again no variables can affect the outcome of a tournament by that much.\\\" which shows that variables make it harder to play golf, but by a small/unknown amount. I agree that the hole in one \\\"is a rarity of golf\\\", but it was just an example to show that it requires more accuracy to hit a ball a farther distance with the same accuracy. I agree that \\\"this \\\"incredible accuracy\\\" is not complete skill as in all sports luck is involved\\\", but that means that luck is also involved in ping pong, so ping pong is not any more of a sport than golf. The statement \\\"in all sports luck is involved\\\" negates the resolution, and my opponent said it, not me. My opponent's next argument is about the math, which I went over above. My opponent's last argument is that \\\" ping pong balls move in different directions than just strait\\\", and I agree with this, but he has not given a number value, similar to how I could not give a number value to the variables affecting golf. It is not possible to show that ping pong is harder than golf when we have an unknown value making it more difficult on each side. We cannot weigh EITHER unknown value as greater than the other, so the resolution must be negated. Conclusion: My opponent has not offered any arguments against my first contention or my subpoints a) or b), as I stated in my second round. My first contention is very important because I defined a sport as a noun and argued that nouns could not be more of themselves than the same noun. In other words, as my opponent agreed with, \\\"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\\\" This negates the resolution, if they are equal sports then ping pong cannot be more of a sport than golf, they are equal. My subpoints a) and b) were mainly for clarification, so it doesn't really matter that much that my opponent agreed with them. The voting issues in this debate (as I see them) should be: 1. A sport cannot be \\\"more of a sport\\\" than another sport because sport is a noun. My opponent agreed with this. 2. The Force associated with playing each sport, which sport puts more stress on the body due to the forces. 3. Which sport takes more accuracy. 4. The variables affecting golf make golf a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. 5. The moving ping pong ball makes ping pong a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. I believe that I have won on the majority of these arguments and I urge you to vote negative. (1)-http://www.ajdesigner.com... (2)-http://calculator.com... Thanks for the debate, Witty, it's been fun.\",\n \"NASCAR is a sport\\nWhoever said golf was a sport? There simply isn't enough athleticism involved in NASCAR for it to be a sport. its not just a matter of strength but one of physical exertion and ability. NASCAR isn't primarily dependent on atheltic ability. Under your interpretation things like darts and shuffleboard become sports. NASCAR isn't an athletic activity. Coordination is a mental ability. There is virtually no atheleticism involved and therefore isn't a sport.\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill\\nLets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, \\\"I just lost the tournament\\\", or \\\"I'm such an idiot\\\". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked.\",\n \"Dancing is a sport\\nI think that dancing is a sport by which you move your body and it involves physical movements rather than sitting there and doing nothing it has a point in life like sports does\",\n \"Golf is the hardest sport\\nGolf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time.\",\n \"Color guard should be considered a sport\\nI will first start this round by asking you questions: Have you ever been to a guard competition? Do you know anyone who had done guard? The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. My opponent said that color guard requires SOME level of athletic prowess and that is not true. If in color guard you must have to skill and athleticism, if you don't you will not succeed and not become the winner. Because it is not considered a sport not much respect and admiration is given to it, so it needs to be to get the respect and admiration it deserves.\",\n \"does golf is a real sport\\ni think golf is not a real sport, because you dont make a physical exercise.\",\n \"Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\\nNegative case: Definition: Sport-noun: 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be \\\"more of a sport\\\" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is \\\"more of a sport\\\" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that \\\"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. \\\" and \\\"golf on the other hand is a SPORT\\\" then they agree that both Ping Pong and golf are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are \\\"often of a competitive nature\\\", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: \\\"Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. \\\"(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables. Affirmation's case: My opponent did not define any terms, so as of now my definitions are the only definitions usable in this debate. My opponent's first claim is that \\\"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. \\\" Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful. Golf also requires more endurance than Ping Pong. Golf requires more strength than Ping Pong and therefore requires more endurance on a second by second basis. My opponent's second claim is that \\\"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \\\"any one\\\" can succeed in. \\\"any one\\\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves. Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body. My opponent's last claim is that \\\" A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving. \\\" I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \\\"more of a sport\\\" (1)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Golf is a sport\\nPeople can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled \\\"Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport,\\\" published on cbssports.com: \\\"Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible.\\\" Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled \\\"Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.,\\\" published on the Huffington Post website: \\\"Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But \\\"no walking required\\\"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Sport is a great way to stay fit and healthy. This is very important today as few people have jobs ... It is important to keep fit, but sport is not the only way to do this. Eating well is a big part of a healthy life, and many people prefer to exercise in other ways, for example jogging, working out in a gym, dancing, or even gardening. On the other hand, sport can actually be dangerous. Millions of people are hurt playing sport each year, some of them very seriously. Professional athletes spend much of their time getting over injury. Being hurt by another player is common in contact sports, such as boxing, soccer, football, rugby or hockey. Other injuries often happen because players are pushing their bodies too hard or for too long, in training or competition.","Gaming is a sport Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. (https://tinyurl.com...)Gaming: CAN BE DONE BY STEPHEN HAWKING THINKING INTO A COMPUTER! You can hack, troll and efficiently chat while gaming, do any of this at sports and you will get completley demolished.Chess and poker are nothing like videogames.http://www.youtube.com...Observe the video for an example of gaming.","Pro Gaming a sport Since my opponent only stated he has overwhelming facts to present I have nothing to refute so I will go on to present my arguments. My opponent gave no def. of sport so I will put one forth. Sport-an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc\" By that definition it shows that pro gaming is not a sport. It does not push the physical limits of the human body, and there is no frequent movement of each muscle in the human body. Also from one of the staff members blogs saying himself that it is not a sport. \"No, professional gaming is not a sport. While it's a viable form of competition and, according to some definitions of the word sport, it's easy to define pro gaming as such, the key to distinguishing viable forms of competition, such as competitive gaming and basketball, from sports is athletic activity. While poker, chess and gaming are viable professional, competitive activities they are dissimilar to sports such as basketball and tennis that require physical exertion. By adding this requirement we make the way we talk about things more clearly defined. The fact that gaming is not a \"traditional\" sport defines it as something else while not taking away at all from what is has in common with a sport. We classify things as specifically as possible in order to clarify discussion. \" by Brick from MLGpro. com If people who work for it don't classify it as a sport it shouldn't be one.","Video games are a sport Sounds like this will be an interesting discussion. My opponent brings up the argument that video games are not a sport due to lack of physical activity. Pro argues that other activities with little physical activity are considered sports, but he does not challenge the fact that video games lack physical activity. Since we are agreed on this, I will use it as my Contention 1: Video games lack physical activity. Video games, such as Star Craft, which Pro mentioned, can require a variety of mental skills, as well as good vision and hand-eye coordination. However, one thing they do not require is physical activity, which is something Pro confirms. My opponent uses dictionary.com, which is not at all a problem in the context of this debate. However, if we dig deeper, we can find that Pro trunucated his definition of \"sport\". Normally, this is not a problem, and such an action can often be justified for the sake of brevity, but in this case, the full definition has more useful information to consider: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" This definition provides not only criteria for inclusion, but a variety of examples, including racing, (maybe not auto racing, but this works just as well) which is considered a sport due to the physical stamina that is necessary on account of the moderate G-forces that riders experience, and golf, which requires physical skill to control the ball with a wide variety of clubs and in many circumstances. This can be expressed as Contention 2: Sports require physical activity. I could stop right here, but it might also be very useful to return to dictionary.com. If a sport is an \"athletic activity...\" the definition of \"athletic\" might be useful here: \"of or relating to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina\" These are our established criteria for a sport. Sports involve physical activities or capabilities. We could discuss why video games do not meet these criteria, but that is unnecessary, since Pro argues that they do not, and we are in agreement on this. To conclude, let me explain my stance on the other four activities my opponent mentioned: Curling, chess, competitive eating, and poker. Curling involves the physical abilities to release a stone with vital accuracy in speed and direction, and to manipulate its trajectory by shaving the ice with technique and accuracy. These are physical activities. Conclusion: Sport. Chess is said by some to be a sport because professional games, which can last for six or even seven hours, require stamina and endurance. However, chess has always been a primarily mental activity, and it can be enjoyed just as well at faster time controls, in which games can be done in under two hours. The physical aspect does not play a role in most contexts. Conclusion: Not a sport. Competitive eating involves at its core a physical skill, the ability to ingest large amounts of food in a short time. Conclusion: Sport. Poker, like chess, involves mental skill and decisions. One could argue that it also involves the ability to psychologically interpret opponents, and keep them from doing the same to you. However, this again is a mental activity, not a physical one. Conclusion: Not a sport. The word \"sport\" can mean a wide variety of things. It does not only involve brute force, as in American football or wrestling, or endurance, as in long-distance running or soccer, but more subtle physical abilities, as in archery or golf. Video games are not a sport, since they primarily involve mental and not physical abilities.","Bowling is a sport What you're saying is that just because anyone can do it, it is not a sport. I see people playing basketball make a layup. It is still a sport. Regular people can throw touchdowns in football, it's still a sport. Regular people playing hockey score goals, and it's still a sport. Just because regular people can throw a strike, doesn't mean it's not a sport.","Color guard should be considered a sport So going to the meat and potatoes of this debate, I disagree with he statement, that \"Color Guard is a sport\" First of, I apologize in advance if I seem to be a bit scatter brained in my explanation; I will no be taking a traditional point by point stance in my constructive arguments, but instead will simply explain my stance, and apply clash to mty opponent as I deem appropriate. I will happily clarify any discrepancies or misunderstandings either in my next speech, (if my opponent so desires) or in the comments section (also at my opponent's; or even the voter's requests) So no going onto the stance I will take, The Color Guard is not a sport, but an activity. A sport, is competitive activity between two individuals, or two teams in which there is a definitive winner or loser, (meaning that you could possibly consider Chess, or a Debate a sport but no the Color guard) Now my opponent would have you believe that because it is difficult to do, or because it requires some level of athletic prowess, that is is a sport. but that's not necessarily true. for instance, performing a surgical operation is extremely difficult, and not everybody can do that. but that doesn't make it a sport. And Weightlifting (not power-lifting, or any competitive variation of the such) is an activity that an athlete may do to prepare them for their sport; but it in and of itself is not a sport just because it requires athletic ability And finally there really is no winner or loser when the Color Guard ends. Unlike say Football, or Soccer, there is no way to either determine clash, or even measure clash. so in closing, Color Guard- whether they are a member of a scout organization, the Military, or even a High School Band. they perform an important and special activity that deserves respect and admiration; it is not however a sport. I look forward to a wonderful debate!","Bowling is a sport As someone who earned a high school letter in bowling, and, when he could stomach participating, a 200+ average, I will accept this challenge and be taking the position of the Con - Bowling is not a sport. It is a game (and an excuse to drink and smoke).","Hunting is no sport; it's not a competition between equal parties R. Lerner, letter, Sierra. March-April 1991 - \"Whether hunting is right or wrong, a spiritual experience, or an outlet for the killer instinct, one thing it is not is a sport. Sport is when individuals or teams compete against each other under equal circumstances to determine who is better at a given game or endeavor. Hunting will be a sport when deer, elk, bears, and ducks are... given 12-gauge shotguns. Bet we'd see a lot fewer drunk yahoos (live ones, anyway) in the woods if that happened.\"[3]","Golf is not a physical sport Either Merritt doesn't want to aruge, or golf really isn't a physical sport.","Pro gaming should be considered a \"sport\" Since Pro did not lay down any definitions I will offer them. sport : a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other professional : paid to participate in a sport or activity gaming : the activity of playing computer games Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing professional gaming (gamers paid to participate in tournaments, competitions, etc) should not be considered a sport (a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities). 1. Playing computer games is not a physical activity. A sport requires physical skill and ability. Anything where you're sitting still in a chair isn't a sport. The only physical attributes one needs for computer gaming is hand eye coordination and fingers that possess some form of dexterity, while real sports like basketball, soccer and tennis requires you to use your whole body. Therefore playing computer games is not a sport. 2. Their is no such thing as professional gaming. I never heard of someone investing their money on a gamer/team of gamers to play in a tournament. Gaming teams join tournaments for free or for with a fee. No one is paying them to participate in a tournament and they join tournaments to win and have fun. 3. Computer gaming are not like other sports. EA-sports is games about sports and does not mean that it is a sport. Computer gaming is a computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen. Sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Physicality aside - a round of golf will cause more mental fatigue than most (if not all) sports. Reasons include: - the decisions throughout a round of golf are extremely complex - in order to succeed, a high level of CONSTANT focus is required (in most sports - especially team sports - focus is only intermittent) - most sports rely on instinctual reactions/muscle memory as a form of decision-making - golf requires a longer decision-making process which is entirely based on achieving a particular state of mind (confident visualization) - this constant effort to achieve and maintain a state of mind is more mentally demanding - especially with regard to team sports which require only intermittent focus - personal accountability (not a team sport so there is no one sharing the responsibility of succeeding)","Video games are a sport Your definition of \"sport\" states that sports require physical effort. You yourself said in your argument that \"Sports does [sic] not need to be a main physical activity\", which directly contradicts the definition you provided. If we take your definition as the one used in this debate, which I'm happy to do, it disallows video games as a sport. Video games do not require any more physical effort than walking up the stairs, making a cup of tea, or using the toilet. Therefore, unless you wish to count any of the above three as sports, you cannot count video games as a sport. (Despite being an avid chess player, I don't believe that chess is a sport. I've played soccer for over half my life and think it's stupid to compare chess to soccer).","Track and Field is the best sport there is Second round will be for opening arguments, third will be for rebuttals, and fourth will be for final rebuttals/closing arguments. Some definitions: Sport- An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. Best- Better than all others (any way can be used to prove this, I do not have to prove that it is better in every single way than every other sport, just that overall its benefits outweigh those of every other sport. This resolution will be decided upon by the voters) BOP is on both of us, but more on me than con. Thanks in advance to whoever accepts.","Is dance a sport A sport is \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment\".Dancing isn't competetive, it's a performance.","Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport I forfeited because I only intended to do 3 Rounds (sorry I forgot to tell you in the opening round). Please FF (forgive forfeiture)!!! So the definition of sport no longer has to do with tradition? Everything NOW that is a definite and obvious \"sport\" is such not only because of the characteristics of teamwork and athleticism but the tradition which has remained. [1] I have already given my reasons for why Ping Pong players do not... -give physical exertion -it is only instinct, if anything players need to have hand-eye coordination: for sure they don't need skill! And, as the definition gives, a sport is something that MUST be done for the ENTERTAINMENT OF OTHERS. I have also already given reasons why Table Tennis is an awful spectator sport and, in most cases, boring to watch too. My opponent: \"If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics?\" As I said earlier, diving is in the Olympics, but it is more of a hobby (just like the game of Ping Pong) rather than an actual sport--in my opinion, diving isn't a sport OR a game. But that's a conversation for another time. I said it could be a lazy sport but that does not mean it qualifies for (yes, a TRADITIONAL) sport. [2] Ping Pong, in my presence, could be called a non-traditional/lazy sport but I wouldn't allow it to be ranked any higher than that because when you have sports like baseball and basketball, can you possibly put Ping Pong up there at the same level of sport?! That would be disappointing. [3] SOURCES [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.sodahead.com... [3] http://wiki.answers.com...","is paintball a sport Paintball is a sport because it involves physical exertion and skill is needed and is also played as a team sport","Color guard is not a sport. Colour guard is a sport The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. Ever heard the annoyingly worn-out argument, \"Cheerleading is not a sport\"? The truth is that legally, North Augusta cheerleading is NOT a sport. In cheerleading however, you compete through the districts. Soccer and football does the same too. Therefore I believe that whatever sports argument they are cooking up falls. \"It is not recognized by the olympics\" Here is the issue with this. Golf is a sport. However it is not in the olympics. Does that mean Golf is no longer a sport? Just because it is not in the olympics does not define what really is a sport. Sure there are many non sports that aren't in the olympics. However we can still justify that golf is a sport and we can't exclude that from a sports. Therefore this argument is false. Not all competitions need a definitive scoring system. Numbers don't define what is right or wrong, likewise what is a sport or not. \"there is no clear interaction\" Their definition is very biased in my opinion. Their definition only indicates that there is a NEED to score points and show a clash among participants. However, this is only referring to his arguments and not the whole case in general. For that I believe this is more biased towrds his side. Here is my definition that refers to both sides: competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally They have stated that they need to practice the same moves overtime. However this is still physical. It shows skills and physical exertion on how to achieve this. For that, their \"two side\" argument falls. Thanks","Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Your definition of sport is your opinion and I respect it but don't agree with it. We aren't debating if ping pong was a \"traditional \" sport we were debating if it is a sport. I am completely certain that professional ping pong players practice every day for long periods of time and if you take the time to watch the games they do sweat. Cricketers also have good hand eye coordination . As in everything ping pong players have to hone their talents. Ping pong players do have to run as I said earlier because their opponent drop shots them and plays the ball from corner to corner. If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics? First of all you call it a game but now a lazy Sport which you were saying it definitely wasn't at the start. Please make this more clear.","Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers I find Imabench's proposed plan to be of absolute stupidity and lack of class. Soccer is for the finer sport. Soccer is to classy as football is to neanderthals: they're one and the same. Anyone can run head on into another person and smack into them like s sack of mentally deficient potatoes, but it takes real class and finesse to juke around an opponent, spinning madly while still keeping a ball at your feet and your opponent dazed. Soccer should not be changed, but instead be instigated as the international sport, mandating that every country teach their youth to play it at least through highschool, in order to get our youth to understand a true work ethic and what true skill looks like.As for my opponent's parameters, I am delighted to inform everyone that I have an IQ of 39.67. Rounded up, that's fourty one, so it's close enough.And who's Ron Paul? It kind of sounds like too small, which seems to be some of the most commonly said words out of our female population. Pretentious b*tches.I also have a few parameters of my own for my opponent to agree to:1. Golf is the number one reason why old people fall alseep and never wake up again.2. The egg came before the chicken.","Sports shooting is a safe activity Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.","Do you think dance is a sport A sport is a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other. [1] Dance is not a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other. Therefore, it is not a sport. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...","Chess is a sport Since you didnt put out the Definition for sport i will: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I would also like us to look at Chris Crawford's definition for a game throughout this round: if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.","Chess is a sport According to your definitions, it is a game is a \"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.\" However,sports are games to according to this definition. So sports are games to. Chess meets all the criteria of a sport.","Is golf a sport Well apparently, anything Pro states is considered fact, regardless of the lack of evidence to support his claims.I too wish to possess such entitlement, but unfortunately I am not capable of making such declarations. I'll leave this up to the voters to decide if they choose to adopt Pro's view of factuality as their own.","Guns dont kill people; Golf on T.V. does Golf on t.v sucks","Competitive Horse Riding is a Sport So are you saying that another sport like, say, soccer or baseball can't be played for fun? That's not really strengthening your argument much.","Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Ping Pong... ...the art of playing tennis on a table except for the rackets aren't as big, the balls are made of different material, the balls aren't yellow, and they are smaller; the players don't stand on the court to play rather they play standing besides the table. The table has a net in the middle of the table and the objective is to pass the little ball over the net, letting the ball hit the other side but not yours. I argue that this is not a sport because 1. everything is miniature 2. does not require much athleticism at all as you do not have to move 3 does not require teamwork 4. does not require strategy All rounds are rebuttals. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!","Is NASCAR A Sport A sport is, \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\" NASCAR fails to meet the important part of \"physical exertion.\" It's (subjectively) entertaining, as well as a competition, but the physical part is the most important. I think this debate is pretty open-and-shut.","Esports is a sport and should be in the Olympics Agreed esports is a wide area. But so is track sports. On the point of some countries don't play a specific game: some countries don't play softball, But it's an Olympic sport. Games like CSGO, League, Dota. Have teams in every continent. And have structures, Rules and tournaments that run just fine. Just because a game has players on multiple platforms doesn't mean there aren't players for a specific platform. On the point that the Olympics is old and we should leave it alone: from the Wikipedia page of the Olympics: Two previously discontinued sports, Golf and rugby, Returned for the 2016 Summer Olympics. On August 13, 2009, The IOC Executive Board proposed that golf and rugby sevens be added to the Olympic program for the 2016 Games. [16] On 9 October 2009, During the 121st IOC Session in Copenhagen, The IOC voted to admit both sports as official Olympic sports and to include them in the 2016 Summer Olympics. [17] The IOC voted 81\"\"8 in favor of including rugby sevens and 63\"\"27 in favor of reinstating golf, Thus bringing the number of sports back to 28. [17] The games are constantly updated. New ones added and old ones removed. So no, We don't and should not leave the Olympics alone. If chess is considered an Olympic sport then why not other games?","Baseball Is a Sport You're on, buddy! Sport, as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, is a physical activity engaged in for pleasure. Now, baseball requires physical activity, in the pitching, catching, running, batting, throwing, etc., and is engaged in for pleasure, so it is therefore a sport. http://www.merriam-webster.com...","Basketball is worse than golf! All you have to do is hit the boall and go after it. It is much more fun compared to basketball. Firstly, golf is ann enjoyablle and relaxed way to get excersice whilst also doing a sportt. Seckondly, it is a moore sociall way to get to know people. Alll ages can get envolved and it is great for a family day oout. Thirdly, . http://www.walkthewalkpresents.com... golf doesn't cause any injuries and is a healthy way to get more flexible. In conklusion, it is good for alll ages, you get more fit comparred to basketball and flexible, it is more simple and has less rules. . http://www.braintraining101.com... has prove!","Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously First, let's define sports. According to Dictionary.com, the meaning of sports is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" While playing video games might not require as much physical prowess, it is very competitive. Example 1: In CS:GO, competitive players will compete in tournaments for as much as up to 1 Million USD such as in the most recent PGL major Krakow. You might say that video games require \"little or no skills\", or are \"button mashing\". I cannot agree less, but what you said are general misconceptions of video gaming. For your first point, let's define skill. Skill, according to dictionary.com, is \"the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well\". Skill is a major factor in these games of competitive nature, such as the world renown League of Legends, or the previously mentioned CS:GO. Both games requires a high level of skill to perform well in either competitive matches or casual matches. League of Legends will require the players to understand the usage of certain abilities of characters to gain an edge over the opposing. There are also items which can be bought and will give an advantage for you, but since you have only 6 slots, you have to optimize your items. These are just the bare minimum you will need to know to play the game, but there are much more to the eye than the tip of the iceberg. In CS:GO, there are many spots that can be used to smoke off areas and be advantageous to your site-taking or hostage extraction. The ability to aim well is also a major factor to eliminate the enemy so that you win. Being able to predict what the enemy will buy or know what to buy on the start of the round is also a major factor to gaining an edge over the enemy. To summarize this, I have listed why video gaming fits the definition of sports and should be a sport.","NASCAR is a sport The definition of coordination is \"Harmonious functioning of muscles or groups of muscles in the execution of movements.\". That sounds like it has a lot to do with athletics. In fact coordination is the key to athletics in every sport; soccer, basketball, tennis, etc. Where do you draw the line? According to you Nascar and Golf are not sports because the athletes are not always in great shape. By this logic baseball also is not a sport since many baseball players have big guts and cannot move well. I challenge you to tell us: What other sports that are widely accepted as sports are not sports? and where do you draw the line? Are you simply trying to rewrite the definition of sports? My theory is that you look down on Nascar people. You are a snob and you are just trying to feel better about yourself by bringing it down. You could never drive Nascar, it's a sport that goes way over your head.","Dance is a sport. My opponents argument is that there are other things that people do that take practice and/or physical labor, but never does he say why dance isn't a sport. Sport - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature; does this not apply to dance? The Contender points out that construction workers require what I said is needed to be an athlete. Usually, if you think about a sport, you think about practicing that sport until perfection. You do not need to practice being a construction worker. I agree that musicians must practice a lot, but the type of practice is different, but I am assuming some would say that the marching band is a sport.","Should games be considered as a sport By every dictionary I've been able to find, a sport requires a physical effort. Debating is not a sport. Although it requires mental effort, it still doesn't make the cut.Dictionary.com (1) - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling,wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. - a particular form of this, especially in the out of doors.Oxford (2)- An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.Learner's Dictionary (3)- a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each otherCambridge (4)- a game, competition, or similar activity, done for enjoyment or as a job, thattakes physical effort and skill and is played or done by following particular rules:The simple fact of the matter is that the term sport simply doesn't fit. We call them E-sports for a reason, because they're not real sports. They need a new name (Hence the E- part of it) because it's not an actual sport.Now the question is whether or not it should be. The simple answer is no. Why should we change definitions because of a new trend? Leave sports physical and come up with your own term, or your own title.(1) - http://www.dictionary.com...(2) - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...(3) - http://www.learnersdictionary.com...(4) - http://dictionary.cambridge.org...","Golf is better than soccer. AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS Golf takes patience. This statement might be true but that's about the only skill you need. In soccer you have to have GREAT coordination, dribbling skills, shooting skills, blocking skills, guarding skills Makes way more money If you take the average of all the money that golfers make and take the average of all the money that soccer players make.. soccer players will have alot higher average free cool things you get free things from soccer also it is a sport and sports have sponsors which means free things... and plus cool is entirely an opinion so there's no way she can prove this argument. You get to play on beautiful courses on a big field soccer just so happens to also be on a big field. and beautiful yet again is an opinion. Golf Carts what makes golf carts so great. there is no reasoning for her argument.(another opinion) NEW ARGUMENTS Soccer is the biggest sport in the world without a doubt and is the number one sport in just about every country including asia and africa. i have a quot from articlebase.com stating \"there was a global television audience of 49 billion people for the 2002 World Cup alone.\" Soccer is just as hard as golf if not harder. also from articlebase.com stating \"This game can be as frustrating as golf, as physical as football and hockey, as erratic as baseball, and as exciting as basketball.\" and I also had a question for the pro.. do you believe that soccer players or golfers are more respected in the world (note how i said world and not america)","Are Video Games A Sport no ok they r not a sport!! Moving and jumping and running and throwing and lifting is a sport. sports: softball,basketball,volleyball,football,track and field,cross country,cheer, etc.","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Lets start with the mental aspect, golf is mentally draining. U have to constantly think about what will happen if u hit the ball too far or too short, or too much right or left. U have to be mentally strong to win and u have virtually no help. Only in golf do u have to hit between trees, off of twigs dirt, rocks, etc... U have to be able to create opportunity where it seems to be none. The skill aspect is is easily shown, the amount of skill it takes to battle the natural challenges, put together with bunkers and water hazards and anything else placed to make the course hard. Only in golf do you have to worry about if u hit the ball two yards too far, its in the bunker or water. Golf as a whole is just a demanding sport and requires the most mentally, skill wise and creativity.","Dance Is A Sport Regardless of what my opponent thought she was referring to, the debate parameters were set to debate \"Dance is a sport\", not \"Competitive Dance is a sport\". There was no explicit debate rule or definition which set \"sport\" to mean \"competitive sport\". Therefore, my opponent has attempted to change the resolution mid-debate. Seeing that my opponent has tried to debate a different resolution, my arguments negating have been left wholly uncontested, and thus the resolution stands negated.","Gaming is a sport The term gaming is an umbrella term including all the lazy slob versions of gaming too, you can't then say that since a select few forms of gaming have exercise incorporated into their interface that gaming itself is now a sport.Your point about Pewdiepie earning money is irrelevant since a job is not a sport.Your definition of a sport means that to live is a sport since living involves moving cells and biological molecules. (http://tinyurl.com...) You can't dictate a definition in round 3.","Dancing is a sport By that logic, walking is a sport. It becomes a sport when legally recognized as one. Hence why videogames are sports. They've been legally accepted and recognized as sports.","Basketball is worse than golf! Basketball is defined as, a game played between two teams of five players, in which goals are scored by throwing a ball through a netted hoop fixed at each end of the court. Basketball is popular world wide and is suitable for all ages http://channels.isp.netscape.com.... Golf and basketball are similar in few ways according to http://thegratefulgolfer.com..., but how good are they in terms of your health? Basketball is definitely a faster running game compared to golf. To play golf though, you have to have patience and good eye sight, which could fail some people. Basketball is definitely much better than golf for the fitness reasons of (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...): -burn calories (an hour of basketball can burn 630–750 calories)-build endurance-improve balance and coordination-develop concentration and self-discipline-build up muscle-take care of your body more (stretches/warmup/warm down)Basketball is a more competitive sport compared to golf. Making you work towards something, and hopefully achieving it. This might be as simple as wining a game or be a fluent shooter. People at all ages can play it, and all you need to practice is a ball and a hoop. Basketball is played by people of all ages and all abilities, meaning you can challenge yourself. If you want to be the best at basketball, you do specialised training. This evolves sprints, jumping, core, strength and conditioning and more. As basketball is played all year round and is mainly an indoor sport, so you can aim to be fit all year.Children at all levels can enjoy the game too whilst making friends. As golf only evolves a small amount of people, basketball has at least 10 players each game. http://www.livestrong.com....Wheel chair basketball is also an option for people who have disabilities or have had an accident. However, it stops you from being able to play golf. Wheel chair basketball is most likely one of the best sports for people who have disabilities.In addition, basketball is much more preferable than golf. Linking it to higher fitness levels, more people to socialise with, get to be more motivated and everyone can participate in basketball.","Are Esports real sports Def. of sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Skill OR Physical prowess. Playing Esports certainly requires skill of some sort. So does chess, by the way. And chess is recognized as a sport in more than 100 countries. Are you trying to tell me that playing video games requires no skill whatsoever? I'm trying to contain my laughter. \"Sports require physical exertion e sports have none whatsoever .\" Okay, so people playing Esports are completely immobile? Wow, how inaccurate I was calling you kid, by the way. Your grammar is childlike. And by childlike, I mean a little kid's.","Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport I thank you for putting this argument on and look forward to a fantastic debate. As you have not given a definition of \"sport\" I took the liberty of doing it. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Ping pong involves both physical exertion as you have to move your arms and dive for the ball on occasion. And it certainly requires skill as people who have never played it are usually terrible and the professionals can hit and return the ball at tremendous speeds. In response to your 4 arguments why it is isn't a sport. Firstly the fact that everything is smaller than tennis doesn't make it miniature and if it was I do not see why that would matter. Secondly it does require athleticism as you have to lunge forward if your opponent drop shots you or hits it really hard and you have stand backwards. Thirdly you are right it doesn't require teamwork but neither does tennis, squash, chess, gymnastic or swimming . And it actually can be played in doubles just like tennis, and swimming. And tun response to your last comment it does require strategy as you have to know when to drops shot your opponent or know hen to hit it extremely hard or play the ball into the corners. I look forward to your return argument.","Video games are a sport What is a sport? \"a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job\" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...). Video games require skill and reflexes, has rules and can be for pure enjoy or a full time job. Sports does not need to be a main physical activity, chess is a sport and you have just move a wooden piece (or any other material), but requires skill and strategy, with rules and is competitive.","Gaming is a sport Resolution - Gaming is a sportGaming - The action or practice of playing video games.Sport - An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.StructureFirst round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No \"K's\" on the topic.","Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Definitions My opponent's definition as stated before is, \"A sport is a game that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three, which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game. Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community\" Let us break it down bit by bit considering that it is a very lengthy, broad definition. \"A sport is a game...\" We already know that sport falls under the umbrella definition of game. \"... that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three,...\" My opponent has basically said that for a game to be a sport, it has to have skill, strategy or strength, varying in how much of each. Now we know that skill and strategy is something that is iffy about video games, but strength is a whole other matter. Now the definition for strength is, \"The quality or state of being physically strong:\" [1] Now we come back to the argument over physical exertion. If my opponent means 'balance of the three' meaning it could be just a balance of \"skill and strategy\" or \"strength and skill\", etc and not the third option (if the game didn't have strength for example), that is literally the definition of game and therefore makes my opponents definition invalid. If that isn't so, that means all three are a, \"must have\" for a game to be a sport. My opponent said golf and chess don't require physical exertion. May I remind my opponent that chess is a mind sport and therefore is apart from the definition of sport. May I also remind my opponent that golf is physically exerting. Just in the same sense that my opponent thinks that LoL has strategy, golf requires strength. If it did not require you to be physically strong, how come men's swings are more powerful than others? Wouldn't they all be the same if golf wasn't physically exerting? So we actually haven't taken out physical exertion as a prerequisite. Therefore, this has made your definition unhelpful to your cause. May I also point out the fact that my opponent used the words, \"or any balance of the three...\" This is extremely vague and is practically still the exact same as the definition for game. Like I said before, if you took out the 'physical exertion' in the definition for sport, you'd end up with the definition for game. May I remind my opponent of the analogy of the square and rectangle. A square can be a rectangle but a rectangle cannot be a square. The definitions for sport and game may be similar, but they're not. Do not get them mixed up when trying to create a new definition. Otherwise the definition, like my opponents one, is wrong in this context. \"...which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game...\" That's exactly what sports do. \"... Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community.\" And then my opponent clarifies this by saying, technically if the fans who care about the game want the game to be a sport, therefore it is a sport. Firstly, this has absolutely no logic to it whatsoever. Just because I want tic-tac-toe to become a sport does not mean that it makes it a sport just because I want it to be one. Tic-Tac-Toe does not qualify to be a sport and my 'willing' it to be one, won't make it a sport. Therefore, it makes this last bit of my opponents definition invalid. Just because video gamers want to tell people they play a sport when they actually don't, does not mean that their 'wanting' has any bearing on whether video games become a sport or not. Look at it this way, if my opponents definition were true, a sport could be a game of monopoly. If the monopoly players truly believed their game was a sport, then it would be one because my opponents definition is incredibly vague. A game of tic-tac-toe could be a sport under my opponents very broad definition. Then my opponent tells me not to look too closely to his definition because in his words, \"... those circle around specifics, or otherwise loopholes and misconceptions that don't need to be brought up.\" This is incredibly ridiculous. A definition is the exact meaning of a word. There shouldn't be any loop holes in a definition, which is what makes my opponents definition even more invalid. Therefore by giving this definition, (which is essentially the definition for game), my opponent has gained absolutely nothing and video games still do not deserve/qualify to be a sport. Strategy Strategy is used in sports and mind sports. Since we already know that video games still do not qualify/deserve to be a sport, it therefore doesn't matter whether my opponent proves that gaming takes strategy. Nevertheless, I will continue. My opponents next points are basically, LoL has strategy, to prove that, here are a ton of links. Or you can just not check my links and accept that LoL has strategy. So, I did not take my opponents word for it. I checked all the links and actually, they're not 'strategy guides'. They are basic to intermediate manuals on how to play LoL, which actually don't really elaborate too much on how LoL has strategy. May I point out the fact that my opponent vaguely says LoL has strategy. May I also point out the fact that my opponent just posted a bunch of links without actually elaborating on what the links say. If debates were like that, why would anybody bother trying to write out everything? Why not just post a bunch of links? My opponent even admits that he himself only briefly glanced at these links before posting them. These links are barely adequate to prove that LoL has strategy that is even complex. May I also state that LoL is one game out of many video games. So tell me, how does a FPS game like Battlefront have strategy? How about other genres of video games? Do they have strategy too? As a side note, it really doesn't matter that LoL has lots of terms and details. So does D&D. Does that make D&D a sport? Science has lots of terms, more so than LoL. Does that make science a sport? Then my opponent says that the guides are surface level compared to the strategy in ESports. This is again, an empty statement like many of my other opponents statements. So basically my opponent has provided empty statements with links to manual guides to back up his statement that LoL has strategy. To back up the fact that video games do not contain much strategy let alone enough to qualify as a mind sport, I shall state that LoL is just one game out of many games. And obviously my opponent chose LoL to represent that video games have strategy because it's probably the most strategic video game out there. So that means that LoL is the pinnacle game for strategy. All other games are below it in that category. LoL may have strategy, but the majority of other video games do not have as much strategy as LoL (the strategy in LoL is even doubtful). When the majority of video games do not have strategy, or a bare minimum of it, how could my opponents definition let alone mind sports definition aide my opponents cause? For someone who is supposedly an \"insider\" in LoL, feel free to explain your strategy. Try not to lie though, I've had many an opponents who's lied to put forth an argument. As for \"should video gaming be a sport?\" Let me use a comparison. Should I eat this apple? The use of the word \"should\" means that I haven't eaten the apple yet and am pondering whether I should. This is the same for should video games be a sport? They are currently not a sport and we are pondering whether it should be one. I do not have to do anything because video games are currently not a sport. You are the one who has to come up with a point that could actually shift the BOP off your shoulders. Right now, all you have been doing is trying to refute my points. You have one last round to come forth with a point. As for disqualifications/qualifications. You said it yourself that we need to prove that either video games qualify or don't qualify to be a sport. To qualify for something, generally the thing that's qualifying has to meet all the prerequisites. Since video gaming has not met the prerequisite for sports (physical exertion), it therefore still isn't a sport. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Well it looks like Pro has deleted his account.","Should we make gaming a sport like: call of duty Sport NOUN1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainmentBased on the Oxford Dictionary definition, I cannot agree that gaming is or should be a sport.Yes, gaming takes skill. Yes, individuals and/or teams can compete against each other.Yes, said competitions are done for entertainment purposes.However, gaming does not require physical exertion. Sitting in your room for 12 hours a day, stuffing Cheetos and Mountain Dew down your gullet while firing up Black Ops 3 may be physically draining, that's not the same as physical exertion.Go ahead, be a professional gamer, compete in tournaments and competitions for cash and prized, but don't call it a sport.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...","Bowling is a sport. I would just like to say that this is my first debate. I am excited to start debating! Lets get started! Dictionary.com defines the word \"sport\" as \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.\" Based on this definition, I believe that bowling can be considered a sport. First round will be acceptance only. Thank you in advance for accepting!","Baseball is better than golf Rebuttals- \"and it is more fun to watch golf on television. \"I think it is more fun to watch baseball on television. \"golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California\"Florida and California for golf well that is only 2. Baseball has much more.","Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. The Definition of SportAlright, in order for this debate to take place, we may very well wind up spending a large portion of our time arguing as to what the definition of a sport is. My opponent, no doubt, will insist that sports require physical exertion; However, I will argue that that is not true. There are a selection of things that have been dubbed \"intellectual sports\", such as chess and poker. Both of these have been broadcast to ESPN before, and many consider them, albeit by loose definition, to be \"sports\".sources:(https://www.chess.com...)(http://londonchessconference.com...)Further, even if you do not believe these to be sports, a large number of people claim that golf is a sport. While golf does involve walking from one place to another, and thus physical exertion, there is no direct correlation between the player's fitness or physical exertion and the actual gameplay. Further, even though swinging a club does require physical activity, the goal is not to swing as hard as you can. Most times, I would assume, the game requires one to swing lightly or with a medium stroke, not exerting one's stamina or muscle to the extent that many others are. Skill and Strategy in Games I hope that my opponent's stance doesn't include \"Games require no/minimal skill/strategy, and therefore cannot be considered sports\", which, fortunately, I have no reason to believe that he or she will. This, quite simply, is false; If you are playing games that require no skill, then you are simply playing games that require no skill, which has no bearing on the gaming industry as a whole. Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability(such as what you see in the youtube videos of Esports champions playing StarCraft. It is insane).Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Feasable Until Proven IllogicalThis next segment will not be proving my point, but simply stating that the only thing I can really say for why Esports deserve to be sports or not is \"why shouldn't they be?\". Both of my previous statements were premeditated counterpoints to points that may or may not even show up. I believe that, under the context of this debate, you need to prove why games cannot be a sport moreso than I need to prove that they can. I cannot easily counter your points until you make them. In other words: your move, con.","Chess is a sport I'm always up for a challenge, and this is defiantly one. In this particular game, one has to wonder what the meaning of the word \"sport\" is on order to fully understand the context. If you go by the most popular definition, then no it is not a sport. Sport- 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Chess is not a sport, but it is an extremely challenging intellectual game. Board game- noun 1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another. 2. any game played on a board.","Gaming is a sport My Rebut first Another definition of a sport is a game or pastime that requires ANY type of movement That video is faked You do get banned for kicking,hacking and trolling but that doesn't come into is gaming a sport My new point now,Wii,Xbox Kinect and playstation move all get you fit, There is even running in Wii","Golf is better than soccer. Golf is a wayyyyy better sport and dumb old soccer. Golf takes patients and you have to be good at it.....PLUS it makes wayy more money. Also you get alot of free cool things just for playing and get to play on beautiful golf courses on a big field.....who doesnt like that?!...And the BEST part is GOLF CARTS!! :P","Is golf asport In Hogwarts, we don't need to walk. We can fly on brooms, we can teleport. Golf is not a walking sport. When people think about golf, they think about the swing and stance. Walking is NOT a key part in golf.","Should games be considered as a sport Sport is not only an activity that requires physical movement but also a behavior of competing and trying to achieve a certain goal. In that case, E-sports have been regarded as a new kind of sports.","Baseball is better than golf Golf uses your mind in more ways than baseball does. Although it is more popular is some places, golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California. Using a golf cart is optional, and it is more fun to watch golf on television. Easy.","Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving.","Major League Gaming a sport I dont think it is a sport i know.....For 1 it is on Espn.com.....which is the most known Sport network site in the world...2. the Def. of a sport is an \"activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as : Tennis, Racing, Golf, Ect.","Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of \"sport\" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in \"A source of diversion\" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, \"sexual play\" refers to the use of \"sport\" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure\" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a \"relaxed canoe trip\" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a \"relaxed canoe trip\" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is \"okay exercise.\" By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging.","Golf is the hardest sport Golf challenges not only requires physical fitness but you need to have the strongest mental game to succeed in golf therefor having the hardest sport","Golf is a sport Oh yeah golf tournaments whoo so intense and so much fun for guys to watch them hit golf balls for 24 holes!!!! The only one tournament people really know is the masters!!!! I think this sport is more boring than nascar at least there you hear fast cars go by you!!!! All the excitement you will get watching golf is a hole in one or a stupid trick shot!!!!","Is golf a sport opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Saying golf is boring is an opinion and is not representative of the whole population. I happen to find golf very interesting and found myself loving every moment of the masters. Therefore saying golf is boring is not factual, golf is a form of entertainment for me and many others, so golf should be represented as a sport.","should video games be considered a sport the definition of a sport is: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\"","Golf is not a sport Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that \"the free market will prevail\". Mind if i quote your closing statement? \"I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.\" Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, \"knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em\", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf.","Is golf asport GOLF IS NOT A SPORT!!!! They only motion that goes into golf is bending down the get the ball, bending down to put the ball on the ground, and swing. You said that they must walk all day, but they can drive in a GOLF cart.","Golf is not a sport Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, \"...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing...\" you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of \"Croquet\", rather than your spelling of \"Krokae\". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these \"sports\" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These \"sports\", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this \"sport\" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the \"sports\" you referenced being referred to as \"sports\" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these \"sports\" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the \"gentleman's sport\" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport.","Golf is a sport I accept your argument. I say golf is not a sport.","Golf is not a sport Just what is a sport? A sport is an activity or in some cases, a lifestyle, that requires a competitive drive, to be in top of your physical form, and to spend ample time studying your sport. Basketball requires months of conditioning, hours studying and practicing plays, and the desire to work with your team to be the on top of all your competition. Football and baseball require the same type of training and necessities. Even individual sports such as Cross-Country running require the desire to win, the countless hours of training to be on top of your physical form, the studying of different terrains. I'll even let NASCAR get in there; it requires the skill of being able to drive at high speeds without crashing, studying different racetracks, and definetely has that competitive edge. But golf? Come on. First of all, the only physical shape you need to be in is the ability to swing a golf club. Thats working a mere 2-3 muscles in your whole body. And you wont need to worry about walking all the way to your next spot after you hit that little white ball, because you've got your fancy golf cart to drive you there! Golf lacks the competitive drive that other sports have. Sure, you're playing against 18+ other people to get the lowest score, but you only have knowledge of one other person's score; your partners. You dont know when to come in the clutch, when to step it up, when to \"getcha head in the game\". Come on, people.","Golf is a sport Hello this is a debate about golf. Some people on DDO think that golf is not a sport.I believe that statement is false. So I will be challenging someone to a debate about this topic.DEBATE FORMAT;3 roundsThe voting period is 6 months.You get 72 hours to argueUp to 8000 characters. The First round shall be only acceptance.The second round, own arguments.and third round, countering the opponent. Good luck and remember, PLEASE HAVE FUN!","does golf is a real sport yes but thats why we are making this debate duh","Golf is a sport Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play.","Golf is not a sport Kenicks, I'm glad I finally get a debate against you. I have had a few nasty ones on this site mostly personal attacks because I am a conservative, mind if we just keep it clean and about Golf? we can debate about politics some other time. First of all I want to say that every definition I can pull up on the internet and the two dictionaries I have here at the house all come up with the same definition, that a sport is something that has guidelines, and rules, and requires skill along with SOME physical extortion. It is my opinion Kenicks that your views on a sport is sort of arrogant ( no harm intended). I think that as Americans we get blinded on that a sport consists of body builders, or martial arts, or who can hit the hardest. However if we are going to characterize sports into these categories we must remember we are not the only country, if we try and remove golf from sporting we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing the list can go on and on. These sporting competitions do not require much physical duress but they are a sport none the less. Now what you suggested chess, and poker, haha and beer pong would of course not be labeled as a sport. However Golfing that requires skill, and guidelines and rules, and SOME physical duress not nearly as much as tennis,football,or boxing but some fits the definition of a sport perfectly.","Golf is not a physical sport Let me clarify my stance before you accept. I DO believe that golf is a sport in the strictest sense of the word, that is, in the competitive and recreational sense only. The definition of \"sport\": \"A source of diversion; recreation. \" This, I believe is the only way that golf meets the definition of \"sport. \" The word also has another definition: \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in. \" This is where golf fails to meet the definition of a sport- in the physical sense of the word. Here is the definition of \"physical\" that I will be using in this debate: \"characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. \" Golf does not meet this definition. It will be Con's job to argue against this stance. First round is for acceptance. Best of luck to my opponent. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...","Is golf asport If your comparing Hogwarts (which is some made up thing in Harry Potter) then you shouldn't be in this debate. At least I am getting exercise instead of living in the fantasy world. . No one can fly, broom sticks are NOT magical, so get your head straight. Golf is considered a sport because there is physical exercise and the ability to play. It a hard sport to pick up on and be good at. If you think golf is just chasing after a white ball, and riding in a cart. then you are wrong. Why don't you go and play 18 holes, fast pace walking (NO CART ALLOWED), and then tell me how you feel. You might as well just quit now, because you will lose.","Golf is not a sport First I will start with some definitions of \"Sports\" Sport: is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. I believe that these definitions prove my case all of these were taken from the Webster dictionary, the fact is a sport is something is an activity that involves skills be it throwing a ball 40 yards,running 100 miles, or hitting a tiny ball 400 yards into a hole. A sport is a competition involving rules and guidelines, and were skill comes into play. I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.","Is golf asport Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet.","Is golf a sport \"truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do\" \"suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ.\" These statements sound pretty opinionated to me. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy claiming that I'm using opinions as arguments when Pro is doing the exact same thing.I just assumed if he could do so then my opinions would be just as valid.","Is golf a sport I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you.","Golf is a sport ok golf is a sport.. just like anyother sport you're in the sun so no argument there! and people can cheer for you! have you not heard of pro golf tournaments? people go to watch them, and it is a big deal. And it is a sport just like any other it takes time and dedication to master not just anybody can go whack a ball and go pro!","Golf is not a sport Kenicks, I thank you personally for the jab to keep me on my toes and the grammar error you so efficiently spotted out. Look,this vendetta you have over golf and the sport is understandable, it does seem silly that while soldiers are risking life,teachers are over worked, and hard working single business owners are struggling to make it threw financially that people are getting paid millions to hit a white ball into a hole, and this can be said about any sport and that is perfectly understandable. However your debate topic was not that golfers get over paid, or that golfers should not make as much money as baseball players, the point you started was that Golf is not a sport when in fact it is. Again your vendetta against the sport is based purely on your opinion. I have personal experience that golf is a game of extreme skill, and mental duress with some physical extortion. The fact is Golf meets the criteria according to every definition of \"sport\" available. Therefore in the minds of myself and the common English language golf is and should be considered a sport.","Is golf a sport Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated \"Golf is the most boring activity known to man\" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact.","Golf is a sport Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a \"game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. \" [1]Sport, is a \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). \" [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word \"sport. \" Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal","Is golf a sport Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\"For entertainment.\"Golf is the most boring activity known to man. And that's final.Case closed.","does golf is a real sport hahaha okok So here is my point Obviously a sport... I believe that golf is a sport. But we can't say anything if we don't define what a sport is. Golf is \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game).\" (Merriam-Webster) Golf clearly fits the definition provided by Merriam Webster. Finally, Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport."],"string":"[\n \"Sport is a great way to stay fit and healthy. This is very important today as few people have jobs ... It is important to keep fit, but sport is not the only way to do this. Eating well is a big part of a healthy life, and many people prefer to exercise in other ways, for example jogging, working out in a gym, dancing, or even gardening. On the other hand, sport can actually be dangerous. Millions of people are hurt playing sport each year, some of them very seriously. Professional athletes spend much of their time getting over injury. Being hurt by another player is common in contact sports, such as boxing, soccer, football, rugby or hockey. Other injuries often happen because players are pushing their bodies too hard or for too long, in training or competition.\",\n \"Gaming is a sport Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. (https://tinyurl.com...)Gaming: CAN BE DONE BY STEPHEN HAWKING THINKING INTO A COMPUTER! You can hack, troll and efficiently chat while gaming, do any of this at sports and you will get completley demolished.Chess and poker are nothing like videogames.http://www.youtube.com...Observe the video for an example of gaming.\",\n \"Pro Gaming a sport Since my opponent only stated he has overwhelming facts to present I have nothing to refute so I will go on to present my arguments. My opponent gave no def. of sport so I will put one forth. Sport-an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc\\\" By that definition it shows that pro gaming is not a sport. It does not push the physical limits of the human body, and there is no frequent movement of each muscle in the human body. Also from one of the staff members blogs saying himself that it is not a sport. \\\"No, professional gaming is not a sport. While it's a viable form of competition and, according to some definitions of the word sport, it's easy to define pro gaming as such, the key to distinguishing viable forms of competition, such as competitive gaming and basketball, from sports is athletic activity. While poker, chess and gaming are viable professional, competitive activities they are dissimilar to sports such as basketball and tennis that require physical exertion. By adding this requirement we make the way we talk about things more clearly defined. The fact that gaming is not a \\\"traditional\\\" sport defines it as something else while not taking away at all from what is has in common with a sport. We classify things as specifically as possible in order to clarify discussion. \\\" by Brick from MLGpro. com If people who work for it don't classify it as a sport it shouldn't be one.\",\n \"Video games are a sport Sounds like this will be an interesting discussion. My opponent brings up the argument that video games are not a sport due to lack of physical activity. Pro argues that other activities with little physical activity are considered sports, but he does not challenge the fact that video games lack physical activity. Since we are agreed on this, I will use it as my Contention 1: Video games lack physical activity. Video games, such as Star Craft, which Pro mentioned, can require a variety of mental skills, as well as good vision and hand-eye coordination. However, one thing they do not require is physical activity, which is something Pro confirms. My opponent uses dictionary.com, which is not at all a problem in the context of this debate. However, if we dig deeper, we can find that Pro trunucated his definition of \\\"sport\\\". Normally, this is not a problem, and such an action can often be justified for the sake of brevity, but in this case, the full definition has more useful information to consider: \\\"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\\\" This definition provides not only criteria for inclusion, but a variety of examples, including racing, (maybe not auto racing, but this works just as well) which is considered a sport due to the physical stamina that is necessary on account of the moderate G-forces that riders experience, and golf, which requires physical skill to control the ball with a wide variety of clubs and in many circumstances. This can be expressed as Contention 2: Sports require physical activity. I could stop right here, but it might also be very useful to return to dictionary.com. If a sport is an \\\"athletic activity...\\\" the definition of \\\"athletic\\\" might be useful here: \\\"of or relating to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina\\\" These are our established criteria for a sport. Sports involve physical activities or capabilities. We could discuss why video games do not meet these criteria, but that is unnecessary, since Pro argues that they do not, and we are in agreement on this. To conclude, let me explain my stance on the other four activities my opponent mentioned: Curling, chess, competitive eating, and poker. Curling involves the physical abilities to release a stone with vital accuracy in speed and direction, and to manipulate its trajectory by shaving the ice with technique and accuracy. These are physical activities. Conclusion: Sport. Chess is said by some to be a sport because professional games, which can last for six or even seven hours, require stamina and endurance. However, chess has always been a primarily mental activity, and it can be enjoyed just as well at faster time controls, in which games can be done in under two hours. The physical aspect does not play a role in most contexts. Conclusion: Not a sport. Competitive eating involves at its core a physical skill, the ability to ingest large amounts of food in a short time. Conclusion: Sport. Poker, like chess, involves mental skill and decisions. One could argue that it also involves the ability to psychologically interpret opponents, and keep them from doing the same to you. However, this again is a mental activity, not a physical one. Conclusion: Not a sport. The word \\\"sport\\\" can mean a wide variety of things. It does not only involve brute force, as in American football or wrestling, or endurance, as in long-distance running or soccer, but more subtle physical abilities, as in archery or golf. Video games are not a sport, since they primarily involve mental and not physical abilities.\",\n \"Bowling is a sport What you're saying is that just because anyone can do it, it is not a sport. I see people playing basketball make a layup. It is still a sport. Regular people can throw touchdowns in football, it's still a sport. Regular people playing hockey score goals, and it's still a sport. Just because regular people can throw a strike, doesn't mean it's not a sport.\",\n \"Color guard should be considered a sport So going to the meat and potatoes of this debate, I disagree with he statement, that \\\"Color Guard is a sport\\\" First of, I apologize in advance if I seem to be a bit scatter brained in my explanation; I will no be taking a traditional point by point stance in my constructive arguments, but instead will simply explain my stance, and apply clash to mty opponent as I deem appropriate. I will happily clarify any discrepancies or misunderstandings either in my next speech, (if my opponent so desires) or in the comments section (also at my opponent's; or even the voter's requests) So no going onto the stance I will take, The Color Guard is not a sport, but an activity. A sport, is competitive activity between two individuals, or two teams in which there is a definitive winner or loser, (meaning that you could possibly consider Chess, or a Debate a sport but no the Color guard) Now my opponent would have you believe that because it is difficult to do, or because it requires some level of athletic prowess, that is is a sport. but that's not necessarily true. for instance, performing a surgical operation is extremely difficult, and not everybody can do that. but that doesn't make it a sport. And Weightlifting (not power-lifting, or any competitive variation of the such) is an activity that an athlete may do to prepare them for their sport; but it in and of itself is not a sport just because it requires athletic ability And finally there really is no winner or loser when the Color Guard ends. Unlike say Football, or Soccer, there is no way to either determine clash, or even measure clash. so in closing, Color Guard- whether they are a member of a scout organization, the Military, or even a High School Band. they perform an important and special activity that deserves respect and admiration; it is not however a sport. I look forward to a wonderful debate!\",\n \"Bowling is a sport As someone who earned a high school letter in bowling, and, when he could stomach participating, a 200+ average, I will accept this challenge and be taking the position of the Con - Bowling is not a sport. It is a game (and an excuse to drink and smoke).\",\n \"Hunting is no sport; it's not a competition between equal parties R. Lerner, letter, Sierra. March-April 1991 - \\\"Whether hunting is right or wrong, a spiritual experience, or an outlet for the killer instinct, one thing it is not is a sport. Sport is when individuals or teams compete against each other under equal circumstances to determine who is better at a given game or endeavor. Hunting will be a sport when deer, elk, bears, and ducks are... given 12-gauge shotguns. Bet we'd see a lot fewer drunk yahoos (live ones, anyway) in the woods if that happened.\\\"[3]\",\n \"Golf is not a physical sport Either Merritt doesn't want to aruge, or golf really isn't a physical sport.\",\n \"Pro gaming should be considered a \\\"sport\\\" Since Pro did not lay down any definitions I will offer them. sport : a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other professional : paid to participate in a sport or activity gaming : the activity of playing computer games Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing professional gaming (gamers paid to participate in tournaments, competitions, etc) should not be considered a sport (a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities). 1. Playing computer games is not a physical activity. A sport requires physical skill and ability. Anything where you're sitting still in a chair isn't a sport. The only physical attributes one needs for computer gaming is hand eye coordination and fingers that possess some form of dexterity, while real sports like basketball, soccer and tennis requires you to use your whole body. Therefore playing computer games is not a sport. 2. Their is no such thing as professional gaming. I never heard of someone investing their money on a gamer/team of gamers to play in a tournament. Gaming teams join tournaments for free or for with a fee. No one is paying them to participate in a tournament and they join tournaments to win and have fun. 3. Computer gaming are not like other sports. EA-sports is games about sports and does not mean that it is a sport. Computer gaming is a computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen. Sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Physicality aside - a round of golf will cause more mental fatigue than most (if not all) sports. Reasons include: - the decisions throughout a round of golf are extremely complex - in order to succeed, a high level of CONSTANT focus is required (in most sports - especially team sports - focus is only intermittent) - most sports rely on instinctual reactions/muscle memory as a form of decision-making - golf requires a longer decision-making process which is entirely based on achieving a particular state of mind (confident visualization) - this constant effort to achieve and maintain a state of mind is more mentally demanding - especially with regard to team sports which require only intermittent focus - personal accountability (not a team sport so there is no one sharing the responsibility of succeeding)\",\n \"Video games are a sport Your definition of \\\"sport\\\" states that sports require physical effort. You yourself said in your argument that \\\"Sports does [sic] not need to be a main physical activity\\\", which directly contradicts the definition you provided. If we take your definition as the one used in this debate, which I'm happy to do, it disallows video games as a sport. Video games do not require any more physical effort than walking up the stairs, making a cup of tea, or using the toilet. Therefore, unless you wish to count any of the above three as sports, you cannot count video games as a sport. (Despite being an avid chess player, I don't believe that chess is a sport. I've played soccer for over half my life and think it's stupid to compare chess to soccer).\",\n \"Track and Field is the best sport there is Second round will be for opening arguments, third will be for rebuttals, and fourth will be for final rebuttals/closing arguments. Some definitions: Sport- An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. Best- Better than all others (any way can be used to prove this, I do not have to prove that it is better in every single way than every other sport, just that overall its benefits outweigh those of every other sport. This resolution will be decided upon by the voters) BOP is on both of us, but more on me than con. Thanks in advance to whoever accepts.\",\n \"Is dance a sport A sport is \\\"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment\\\".Dancing isn't competetive, it's a performance.\",\n \"Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport I forfeited because I only intended to do 3 Rounds (sorry I forgot to tell you in the opening round). Please FF (forgive forfeiture)!!! So the definition of sport no longer has to do with tradition? Everything NOW that is a definite and obvious \\\"sport\\\" is such not only because of the characteristics of teamwork and athleticism but the tradition which has remained. [1] I have already given my reasons for why Ping Pong players do not... -give physical exertion -it is only instinct, if anything players need to have hand-eye coordination: for sure they don't need skill! And, as the definition gives, a sport is something that MUST be done for the ENTERTAINMENT OF OTHERS. I have also already given reasons why Table Tennis is an awful spectator sport and, in most cases, boring to watch too. My opponent: \\\"If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics?\\\" As I said earlier, diving is in the Olympics, but it is more of a hobby (just like the game of Ping Pong) rather than an actual sport--in my opinion, diving isn't a sport OR a game. But that's a conversation for another time. I said it could be a lazy sport but that does not mean it qualifies for (yes, a TRADITIONAL) sport. [2] Ping Pong, in my presence, could be called a non-traditional/lazy sport but I wouldn't allow it to be ranked any higher than that because when you have sports like baseball and basketball, can you possibly put Ping Pong up there at the same level of sport?! That would be disappointing. [3] SOURCES [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.sodahead.com... [3] http://wiki.answers.com...\",\n \"is paintball a sport Paintball is a sport because it involves physical exertion and skill is needed and is also played as a team sport\",\n \"Color guard is not a sport. Colour guard is a sport The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. Ever heard the annoyingly worn-out argument, \\\"Cheerleading is not a sport\\\"? The truth is that legally, North Augusta cheerleading is NOT a sport. In cheerleading however, you compete through the districts. Soccer and football does the same too. Therefore I believe that whatever sports argument they are cooking up falls. \\\"It is not recognized by the olympics\\\" Here is the issue with this. Golf is a sport. However it is not in the olympics. Does that mean Golf is no longer a sport? Just because it is not in the olympics does not define what really is a sport. Sure there are many non sports that aren't in the olympics. However we can still justify that golf is a sport and we can't exclude that from a sports. Therefore this argument is false. Not all competitions need a definitive scoring system. Numbers don't define what is right or wrong, likewise what is a sport or not. \\\"there is no clear interaction\\\" Their definition is very biased in my opinion. Their definition only indicates that there is a NEED to score points and show a clash among participants. However, this is only referring to his arguments and not the whole case in general. For that I believe this is more biased towrds his side. Here is my definition that refers to both sides: competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally They have stated that they need to practice the same moves overtime. However this is still physical. It shows skills and physical exertion on how to achieve this. For that, their \\\"two side\\\" argument falls. Thanks\",\n \"Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Your definition of sport is your opinion and I respect it but don't agree with it. We aren't debating if ping pong was a \\\"traditional \\\" sport we were debating if it is a sport. I am completely certain that professional ping pong players practice every day for long periods of time and if you take the time to watch the games they do sweat. Cricketers also have good hand eye coordination . As in everything ping pong players have to hone their talents. Ping pong players do have to run as I said earlier because their opponent drop shots them and plays the ball from corner to corner. If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics? First of all you call it a game but now a lazy Sport which you were saying it definitely wasn't at the start. Please make this more clear.\",\n \"Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers I find Imabench's proposed plan to be of absolute stupidity and lack of class. Soccer is for the finer sport. Soccer is to classy as football is to neanderthals: they're one and the same. Anyone can run head on into another person and smack into them like s sack of mentally deficient potatoes, but it takes real class and finesse to juke around an opponent, spinning madly while still keeping a ball at your feet and your opponent dazed. Soccer should not be changed, but instead be instigated as the international sport, mandating that every country teach their youth to play it at least through highschool, in order to get our youth to understand a true work ethic and what true skill looks like.As for my opponent's parameters, I am delighted to inform everyone that I have an IQ of 39.67. Rounded up, that's fourty one, so it's close enough.And who's Ron Paul? It kind of sounds like too small, which seems to be some of the most commonly said words out of our female population. Pretentious b*tches.I also have a few parameters of my own for my opponent to agree to:1. Golf is the number one reason why old people fall alseep and never wake up again.2. The egg came before the chicken.\",\n \"Sports shooting is a safe activity Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.\",\n \"Do you think dance is a sport A sport is a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other. [1] Dance is not a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other. Therefore, it is not a sport. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...\",\n \"Chess is a sport Since you didnt put out the Definition for sport i will: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I would also like us to look at Chris Crawford's definition for a game throughout this round: if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.\",\n \"Chess is a sport According to your definitions, it is a game is a \\\"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.\\\" However,sports are games to according to this definition. So sports are games to. Chess meets all the criteria of a sport.\",\n \"Is golf a sport Well apparently, anything Pro states is considered fact, regardless of the lack of evidence to support his claims.I too wish to possess such entitlement, but unfortunately I am not capable of making such declarations. I'll leave this up to the voters to decide if they choose to adopt Pro's view of factuality as their own.\",\n \"Guns dont kill people; Golf on T.V. does Golf on t.v sucks\",\n \"Competitive Horse Riding is a Sport So are you saying that another sport like, say, soccer or baseball can't be played for fun? That's not really strengthening your argument much.\",\n \"Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Ping Pong... ...the art of playing tennis on a table except for the rackets aren't as big, the balls are made of different material, the balls aren't yellow, and they are smaller; the players don't stand on the court to play rather they play standing besides the table. The table has a net in the middle of the table and the objective is to pass the little ball over the net, letting the ball hit the other side but not yours. I argue that this is not a sport because 1. everything is miniature 2. does not require much athleticism at all as you do not have to move 3 does not require teamwork 4. does not require strategy All rounds are rebuttals. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!\",\n \"Is NASCAR A Sport A sport is, \\\"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\\\" NASCAR fails to meet the important part of \\\"physical exertion.\\\" It's (subjectively) entertaining, as well as a competition, but the physical part is the most important. I think this debate is pretty open-and-shut.\",\n \"Esports is a sport and should be in the Olympics Agreed esports is a wide area. But so is track sports. On the point of some countries don't play a specific game: some countries don't play softball, But it's an Olympic sport. Games like CSGO, League, Dota. Have teams in every continent. And have structures, Rules and tournaments that run just fine. Just because a game has players on multiple platforms doesn't mean there aren't players for a specific platform. On the point that the Olympics is old and we should leave it alone: from the Wikipedia page of the Olympics: Two previously discontinued sports, Golf and rugby, Returned for the 2016 Summer Olympics. On August 13, 2009, The IOC Executive Board proposed that golf and rugby sevens be added to the Olympic program for the 2016 Games. [16] On 9 October 2009, During the 121st IOC Session in Copenhagen, The IOC voted to admit both sports as official Olympic sports and to include them in the 2016 Summer Olympics. [17] The IOC voted 81\\\"\\\"8 in favor of including rugby sevens and 63\\\"\\\"27 in favor of reinstating golf, Thus bringing the number of sports back to 28. [17] The games are constantly updated. New ones added and old ones removed. So no, We don't and should not leave the Olympics alone. If chess is considered an Olympic sport then why not other games?\",\n \"Baseball Is a Sport You're on, buddy! Sport, as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, is a physical activity engaged in for pleasure. Now, baseball requires physical activity, in the pitching, catching, running, batting, throwing, etc., and is engaged in for pleasure, so it is therefore a sport. http://www.merriam-webster.com...\",\n \"Basketball is worse than golf! All you have to do is hit the boall and go after it. It is much more fun compared to basketball. Firstly, golf is ann enjoyablle and relaxed way to get excersice whilst also doing a sportt. Seckondly, it is a moore sociall way to get to know people. Alll ages can get envolved and it is great for a family day oout. Thirdly, . http://www.walkthewalkpresents.com... golf doesn't cause any injuries and is a healthy way to get more flexible. In conklusion, it is good for alll ages, you get more fit comparred to basketball and flexible, it is more simple and has less rules. . http://www.braintraining101.com... has prove!\",\n \"Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously First, let's define sports. According to Dictionary.com, the meaning of sports is \\\"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\\\" While playing video games might not require as much physical prowess, it is very competitive. Example 1: In CS:GO, competitive players will compete in tournaments for as much as up to 1 Million USD such as in the most recent PGL major Krakow. You might say that video games require \\\"little or no skills\\\", or are \\\"button mashing\\\". I cannot agree less, but what you said are general misconceptions of video gaming. For your first point, let's define skill. Skill, according to dictionary.com, is \\\"the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well\\\". Skill is a major factor in these games of competitive nature, such as the world renown League of Legends, or the previously mentioned CS:GO. Both games requires a high level of skill to perform well in either competitive matches or casual matches. League of Legends will require the players to understand the usage of certain abilities of characters to gain an edge over the opposing. There are also items which can be bought and will give an advantage for you, but since you have only 6 slots, you have to optimize your items. These are just the bare minimum you will need to know to play the game, but there are much more to the eye than the tip of the iceberg. In CS:GO, there are many spots that can be used to smoke off areas and be advantageous to your site-taking or hostage extraction. The ability to aim well is also a major factor to eliminate the enemy so that you win. Being able to predict what the enemy will buy or know what to buy on the start of the round is also a major factor to gaining an edge over the enemy. To summarize this, I have listed why video gaming fits the definition of sports and should be a sport.\",\n \"NASCAR is a sport The definition of coordination is \\\"Harmonious functioning of muscles or groups of muscles in the execution of movements.\\\". That sounds like it has a lot to do with athletics. In fact coordination is the key to athletics in every sport; soccer, basketball, tennis, etc. Where do you draw the line? According to you Nascar and Golf are not sports because the athletes are not always in great shape. By this logic baseball also is not a sport since many baseball players have big guts and cannot move well. I challenge you to tell us: What other sports that are widely accepted as sports are not sports? and where do you draw the line? Are you simply trying to rewrite the definition of sports? My theory is that you look down on Nascar people. You are a snob and you are just trying to feel better about yourself by bringing it down. You could never drive Nascar, it's a sport that goes way over your head.\",\n \"Dance is a sport. My opponents argument is that there are other things that people do that take practice and/or physical labor, but never does he say why dance isn't a sport. Sport - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature; does this not apply to dance? The Contender points out that construction workers require what I said is needed to be an athlete. Usually, if you think about a sport, you think about practicing that sport until perfection. You do not need to practice being a construction worker. I agree that musicians must practice a lot, but the type of practice is different, but I am assuming some would say that the marching band is a sport.\",\n \"Should games be considered as a sport By every dictionary I've been able to find, a sport requires a physical effort. Debating is not a sport. Although it requires mental effort, it still doesn't make the cut.Dictionary.com (1) - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling,wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. - a particular form of this, especially in the out of doors.Oxford (2)- An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.Learner's Dictionary (3)- a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each otherCambridge (4)- a game, competition, or similar activity, done for enjoyment or as a job, thattakes physical effort and skill and is played or done by following particular rules:The simple fact of the matter is that the term sport simply doesn't fit. We call them E-sports for a reason, because they're not real sports. They need a new name (Hence the E- part of it) because it's not an actual sport.Now the question is whether or not it should be. The simple answer is no. Why should we change definitions because of a new trend? Leave sports physical and come up with your own term, or your own title.(1) - http://www.dictionary.com...(2) - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...(3) - http://www.learnersdictionary.com...(4) - http://dictionary.cambridge.org...\",\n \"Golf is better than soccer. AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS Golf takes patience. This statement might be true but that's about the only skill you need. In soccer you have to have GREAT coordination, dribbling skills, shooting skills, blocking skills, guarding skills Makes way more money If you take the average of all the money that golfers make and take the average of all the money that soccer players make.. soccer players will have alot higher average free cool things you get free things from soccer also it is a sport and sports have sponsors which means free things... and plus cool is entirely an opinion so there's no way she can prove this argument. You get to play on beautiful courses on a big field soccer just so happens to also be on a big field. and beautiful yet again is an opinion. Golf Carts what makes golf carts so great. there is no reasoning for her argument.(another opinion) NEW ARGUMENTS Soccer is the biggest sport in the world without a doubt and is the number one sport in just about every country including asia and africa. i have a quot from articlebase.com stating \\\"there was a global television audience of 49 billion people for the 2002 World Cup alone.\\\" Soccer is just as hard as golf if not harder. also from articlebase.com stating \\\"This game can be as frustrating as golf, as physical as football and hockey, as erratic as baseball, and as exciting as basketball.\\\" and I also had a question for the pro.. do you believe that soccer players or golfers are more respected in the world (note how i said world and not america)\",\n \"Are Video Games A Sport no ok they r not a sport!! Moving and jumping and running and throwing and lifting is a sport. sports: softball,basketball,volleyball,football,track and field,cross country,cheer, etc.\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Lets start with the mental aspect, golf is mentally draining. U have to constantly think about what will happen if u hit the ball too far or too short, or too much right or left. U have to be mentally strong to win and u have virtually no help. Only in golf do u have to hit between trees, off of twigs dirt, rocks, etc... U have to be able to create opportunity where it seems to be none. The skill aspect is is easily shown, the amount of skill it takes to battle the natural challenges, put together with bunkers and water hazards and anything else placed to make the course hard. Only in golf do you have to worry about if u hit the ball two yards too far, its in the bunker or water. Golf as a whole is just a demanding sport and requires the most mentally, skill wise and creativity.\",\n \"Dance Is A Sport Regardless of what my opponent thought she was referring to, the debate parameters were set to debate \\\"Dance is a sport\\\", not \\\"Competitive Dance is a sport\\\". There was no explicit debate rule or definition which set \\\"sport\\\" to mean \\\"competitive sport\\\". Therefore, my opponent has attempted to change the resolution mid-debate. Seeing that my opponent has tried to debate a different resolution, my arguments negating have been left wholly uncontested, and thus the resolution stands negated.\",\n \"Gaming is a sport The term gaming is an umbrella term including all the lazy slob versions of gaming too, you can't then say that since a select few forms of gaming have exercise incorporated into their interface that gaming itself is now a sport.Your point about Pewdiepie earning money is irrelevant since a job is not a sport.Your definition of a sport means that to live is a sport since living involves moving cells and biological molecules. (http://tinyurl.com...) You can't dictate a definition in round 3.\",\n \"Dancing is a sport By that logic, walking is a sport. It becomes a sport when legally recognized as one. Hence why videogames are sports. They've been legally accepted and recognized as sports.\",\n \"Basketball is worse than golf! Basketball is defined as, a game played between two teams of five players, in which goals are scored by throwing a ball through a netted hoop fixed at each end of the court. Basketball is popular world wide and is suitable for all ages http://channels.isp.netscape.com.... Golf and basketball are similar in few ways according to http://thegratefulgolfer.com..., but how good are they in terms of your health? Basketball is definitely a faster running game compared to golf. To play golf though, you have to have patience and good eye sight, which could fail some people. Basketball is definitely much better than golf for the fitness reasons of (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...): -burn calories (an hour of basketball can burn 630–750 calories)-build endurance-improve balance and coordination-develop concentration and self-discipline-build up muscle-take care of your body more (stretches/warmup/warm down)Basketball is a more competitive sport compared to golf. Making you work towards something, and hopefully achieving it. This might be as simple as wining a game or be a fluent shooter. People at all ages can play it, and all you need to practice is a ball and a hoop. Basketball is played by people of all ages and all abilities, meaning you can challenge yourself. If you want to be the best at basketball, you do specialised training. This evolves sprints, jumping, core, strength and conditioning and more. As basketball is played all year round and is mainly an indoor sport, so you can aim to be fit all year.Children at all levels can enjoy the game too whilst making friends. As golf only evolves a small amount of people, basketball has at least 10 players each game. http://www.livestrong.com....Wheel chair basketball is also an option for people who have disabilities or have had an accident. However, it stops you from being able to play golf. Wheel chair basketball is most likely one of the best sports for people who have disabilities.In addition, basketball is much more preferable than golf. Linking it to higher fitness levels, more people to socialise with, get to be more motivated and everyone can participate in basketball.\",\n \"Are Esports real sports Def. of sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Skill OR Physical prowess. Playing Esports certainly requires skill of some sort. So does chess, by the way. And chess is recognized as a sport in more than 100 countries. Are you trying to tell me that playing video games requires no skill whatsoever? I'm trying to contain my laughter. \\\"Sports require physical exertion e sports have none whatsoever .\\\" Okay, so people playing Esports are completely immobile? Wow, how inaccurate I was calling you kid, by the way. Your grammar is childlike. And by childlike, I mean a little kid's.\",\n \"Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport I thank you for putting this argument on and look forward to a fantastic debate. As you have not given a definition of \\\"sport\\\" I took the liberty of doing it. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Ping pong involves both physical exertion as you have to move your arms and dive for the ball on occasion. And it certainly requires skill as people who have never played it are usually terrible and the professionals can hit and return the ball at tremendous speeds. In response to your 4 arguments why it is isn't a sport. Firstly the fact that everything is smaller than tennis doesn't make it miniature and if it was I do not see why that would matter. Secondly it does require athleticism as you have to lunge forward if your opponent drop shots you or hits it really hard and you have stand backwards. Thirdly you are right it doesn't require teamwork but neither does tennis, squash, chess, gymnastic or swimming . And it actually can be played in doubles just like tennis, and swimming. And tun response to your last comment it does require strategy as you have to know when to drops shot your opponent or know hen to hit it extremely hard or play the ball into the corners. I look forward to your return argument.\",\n \"Video games are a sport What is a sport? \\\"a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job\\\" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...). Video games require skill and reflexes, has rules and can be for pure enjoy or a full time job. Sports does not need to be a main physical activity, chess is a sport and you have just move a wooden piece (or any other material), but requires skill and strategy, with rules and is competitive.\",\n \"Gaming is a sport Resolution - Gaming is a sportGaming - The action or practice of playing video games.Sport - An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.StructureFirst round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No \\\"K's\\\" on the topic.\",\n \"Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Definitions My opponent's definition as stated before is, \\\"A sport is a game that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three, which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game. Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community\\\" Let us break it down bit by bit considering that it is a very lengthy, broad definition. \\\"A sport is a game...\\\" We already know that sport falls under the umbrella definition of game. \\\"... that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three,...\\\" My opponent has basically said that for a game to be a sport, it has to have skill, strategy or strength, varying in how much of each. Now we know that skill and strategy is something that is iffy about video games, but strength is a whole other matter. Now the definition for strength is, \\\"The quality or state of being physically strong:\\\" [1] Now we come back to the argument over physical exertion. If my opponent means 'balance of the three' meaning it could be just a balance of \\\"skill and strategy\\\" or \\\"strength and skill\\\", etc and not the third option (if the game didn't have strength for example), that is literally the definition of game and therefore makes my opponents definition invalid. If that isn't so, that means all three are a, \\\"must have\\\" for a game to be a sport. My opponent said golf and chess don't require physical exertion. May I remind my opponent that chess is a mind sport and therefore is apart from the definition of sport. May I also remind my opponent that golf is physically exerting. Just in the same sense that my opponent thinks that LoL has strategy, golf requires strength. If it did not require you to be physically strong, how come men's swings are more powerful than others? Wouldn't they all be the same if golf wasn't physically exerting? So we actually haven't taken out physical exertion as a prerequisite. Therefore, this has made your definition unhelpful to your cause. May I also point out the fact that my opponent used the words, \\\"or any balance of the three...\\\" This is extremely vague and is practically still the exact same as the definition for game. Like I said before, if you took out the 'physical exertion' in the definition for sport, you'd end up with the definition for game. May I remind my opponent of the analogy of the square and rectangle. A square can be a rectangle but a rectangle cannot be a square. The definitions for sport and game may be similar, but they're not. Do not get them mixed up when trying to create a new definition. Otherwise the definition, like my opponents one, is wrong in this context. \\\"...which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game...\\\" That's exactly what sports do. \\\"... Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community.\\\" And then my opponent clarifies this by saying, technically if the fans who care about the game want the game to be a sport, therefore it is a sport. Firstly, this has absolutely no logic to it whatsoever. Just because I want tic-tac-toe to become a sport does not mean that it makes it a sport just because I want it to be one. Tic-Tac-Toe does not qualify to be a sport and my 'willing' it to be one, won't make it a sport. Therefore, it makes this last bit of my opponents definition invalid. Just because video gamers want to tell people they play a sport when they actually don't, does not mean that their 'wanting' has any bearing on whether video games become a sport or not. Look at it this way, if my opponents definition were true, a sport could be a game of monopoly. If the monopoly players truly believed their game was a sport, then it would be one because my opponents definition is incredibly vague. A game of tic-tac-toe could be a sport under my opponents very broad definition. Then my opponent tells me not to look too closely to his definition because in his words, \\\"... those circle around specifics, or otherwise loopholes and misconceptions that don't need to be brought up.\\\" This is incredibly ridiculous. A definition is the exact meaning of a word. There shouldn't be any loop holes in a definition, which is what makes my opponents definition even more invalid. Therefore by giving this definition, (which is essentially the definition for game), my opponent has gained absolutely nothing and video games still do not deserve/qualify to be a sport. Strategy Strategy is used in sports and mind sports. Since we already know that video games still do not qualify/deserve to be a sport, it therefore doesn't matter whether my opponent proves that gaming takes strategy. Nevertheless, I will continue. My opponents next points are basically, LoL has strategy, to prove that, here are a ton of links. Or you can just not check my links and accept that LoL has strategy. So, I did not take my opponents word for it. I checked all the links and actually, they're not 'strategy guides'. They are basic to intermediate manuals on how to play LoL, which actually don't really elaborate too much on how LoL has strategy. May I point out the fact that my opponent vaguely says LoL has strategy. May I also point out the fact that my opponent just posted a bunch of links without actually elaborating on what the links say. If debates were like that, why would anybody bother trying to write out everything? Why not just post a bunch of links? My opponent even admits that he himself only briefly glanced at these links before posting them. These links are barely adequate to prove that LoL has strategy that is even complex. May I also state that LoL is one game out of many video games. So tell me, how does a FPS game like Battlefront have strategy? How about other genres of video games? Do they have strategy too? As a side note, it really doesn't matter that LoL has lots of terms and details. So does D&D. Does that make D&D a sport? Science has lots of terms, more so than LoL. Does that make science a sport? Then my opponent says that the guides are surface level compared to the strategy in ESports. This is again, an empty statement like many of my other opponents statements. So basically my opponent has provided empty statements with links to manual guides to back up his statement that LoL has strategy. To back up the fact that video games do not contain much strategy let alone enough to qualify as a mind sport, I shall state that LoL is just one game out of many games. And obviously my opponent chose LoL to represent that video games have strategy because it's probably the most strategic video game out there. So that means that LoL is the pinnacle game for strategy. All other games are below it in that category. LoL may have strategy, but the majority of other video games do not have as much strategy as LoL (the strategy in LoL is even doubtful). When the majority of video games do not have strategy, or a bare minimum of it, how could my opponents definition let alone mind sports definition aide my opponents cause? For someone who is supposedly an \\\"insider\\\" in LoL, feel free to explain your strategy. Try not to lie though, I've had many an opponents who's lied to put forth an argument. As for \\\"should video gaming be a sport?\\\" Let me use a comparison. Should I eat this apple? The use of the word \\\"should\\\" means that I haven't eaten the apple yet and am pondering whether I should. This is the same for should video games be a sport? They are currently not a sport and we are pondering whether it should be one. I do not have to do anything because video games are currently not a sport. You are the one who has to come up with a point that could actually shift the BOP off your shoulders. Right now, all you have been doing is trying to refute my points. You have one last round to come forth with a point. As for disqualifications/qualifications. You said it yourself that we need to prove that either video games qualify or don't qualify to be a sport. To qualify for something, generally the thing that's qualifying has to meet all the prerequisites. Since video gaming has not met the prerequisite for sports (physical exertion), it therefore still isn't a sport. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Well it looks like Pro has deleted his account.\",\n \"Should we make gaming a sport like: call of duty Sport NOUN1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainmentBased on the Oxford Dictionary definition, I cannot agree that gaming is or should be a sport.Yes, gaming takes skill. Yes, individuals and/or teams can compete against each other.Yes, said competitions are done for entertainment purposes.However, gaming does not require physical exertion. Sitting in your room for 12 hours a day, stuffing Cheetos and Mountain Dew down your gullet while firing up Black Ops 3 may be physically draining, that's not the same as physical exertion.Go ahead, be a professional gamer, compete in tournaments and competitions for cash and prized, but don't call it a sport.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...\",\n \"Bowling is a sport. I would just like to say that this is my first debate. I am excited to start debating! Lets get started! Dictionary.com defines the word \\\"sport\\\" as \\\"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.\\\" Based on this definition, I believe that bowling can be considered a sport. First round will be acceptance only. Thank you in advance for accepting!\",\n \"Baseball is better than golf Rebuttals- \\\"and it is more fun to watch golf on television. \\\"I think it is more fun to watch baseball on television. \\\"golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California\\\"Florida and California for golf well that is only 2. Baseball has much more.\",\n \"Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. The Definition of SportAlright, in order for this debate to take place, we may very well wind up spending a large portion of our time arguing as to what the definition of a sport is. My opponent, no doubt, will insist that sports require physical exertion; However, I will argue that that is not true. There are a selection of things that have been dubbed \\\"intellectual sports\\\", such as chess and poker. Both of these have been broadcast to ESPN before, and many consider them, albeit by loose definition, to be \\\"sports\\\".sources:(https://www.chess.com...)(http://londonchessconference.com...)Further, even if you do not believe these to be sports, a large number of people claim that golf is a sport. While golf does involve walking from one place to another, and thus physical exertion, there is no direct correlation between the player's fitness or physical exertion and the actual gameplay. Further, even though swinging a club does require physical activity, the goal is not to swing as hard as you can. Most times, I would assume, the game requires one to swing lightly or with a medium stroke, not exerting one's stamina or muscle to the extent that many others are. Skill and Strategy in Games I hope that my opponent's stance doesn't include \\\"Games require no/minimal skill/strategy, and therefore cannot be considered sports\\\", which, fortunately, I have no reason to believe that he or she will. This, quite simply, is false; If you are playing games that require no skill, then you are simply playing games that require no skill, which has no bearing on the gaming industry as a whole. Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability(such as what you see in the youtube videos of Esports champions playing StarCraft. It is insane).Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Feasable Until Proven IllogicalThis next segment will not be proving my point, but simply stating that the only thing I can really say for why Esports deserve to be sports or not is \\\"why shouldn't they be?\\\". Both of my previous statements were premeditated counterpoints to points that may or may not even show up. I believe that, under the context of this debate, you need to prove why games cannot be a sport moreso than I need to prove that they can. I cannot easily counter your points until you make them. In other words: your move, con.\",\n \"Chess is a sport I'm always up for a challenge, and this is defiantly one. In this particular game, one has to wonder what the meaning of the word \\\"sport\\\" is on order to fully understand the context. If you go by the most popular definition, then no it is not a sport. Sport- 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Chess is not a sport, but it is an extremely challenging intellectual game. Board game- noun 1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another. 2. any game played on a board.\",\n \"Gaming is a sport My Rebut first Another definition of a sport is a game or pastime that requires ANY type of movement That video is faked You do get banned for kicking,hacking and trolling but that doesn't come into is gaming a sport My new point now,Wii,Xbox Kinect and playstation move all get you fit, There is even running in Wii\",\n \"Golf is better than soccer. Golf is a wayyyyy better sport and dumb old soccer. Golf takes patients and you have to be good at it.....PLUS it makes wayy more money. Also you get alot of free cool things just for playing and get to play on beautiful golf courses on a big field.....who doesnt like that?!...And the BEST part is GOLF CARTS!! :P\",\n \"Is golf asport In Hogwarts, we don't need to walk. We can fly on brooms, we can teleport. Golf is not a walking sport. When people think about golf, they think about the swing and stance. Walking is NOT a key part in golf.\",\n \"Should games be considered as a sport Sport is not only an activity that requires physical movement but also a behavior of competing and trying to achieve a certain goal. In that case, E-sports have been regarded as a new kind of sports.\",\n \"Baseball is better than golf Golf uses your mind in more ways than baseball does. Although it is more popular is some places, golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California. Using a golf cart is optional, and it is more fun to watch golf on television. Easy.\",\n \"Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving.\",\n \"Major League Gaming a sport I dont think it is a sport i know.....For 1 it is on Espn.com.....which is the most known Sport network site in the world...2. the Def. of a sport is an \\\"activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as : Tennis, Racing, Golf, Ect.\",\n \"Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of \\\"sport\\\" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in \\\"A source of diversion\\\" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, \\\"sexual play\\\" refers to the use of \\\"sport\\\" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition \\\"physical activity engaged in for pleasure\\\" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a \\\"relaxed canoe trip\\\" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a \\\"relaxed canoe trip\\\" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is \\\"okay exercise.\\\" By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging.\",\n \"Golf is the hardest sport Golf challenges not only requires physical fitness but you need to have the strongest mental game to succeed in golf therefor having the hardest sport\",\n \"Golf is a sport Oh yeah golf tournaments whoo so intense and so much fun for guys to watch them hit golf balls for 24 holes!!!! The only one tournament people really know is the masters!!!! I think this sport is more boring than nascar at least there you hear fast cars go by you!!!! All the excitement you will get watching golf is a hole in one or a stupid trick shot!!!!\",\n \"Is golf a sport opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Saying golf is boring is an opinion and is not representative of the whole population. I happen to find golf very interesting and found myself loving every moment of the masters. Therefore saying golf is boring is not factual, golf is a form of entertainment for me and many others, so golf should be represented as a sport.\",\n \"should video games be considered a sport the definition of a sport is: \\\"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\\\"\",\n \"Golf is not a sport Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that \\\"the free market will prevail\\\". Mind if i quote your closing statement? \\\"I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.\\\" Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, \\\"knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em\\\", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf.\",\n \"Is golf asport GOLF IS NOT A SPORT!!!! They only motion that goes into golf is bending down the get the ball, bending down to put the ball on the ground, and swing. You said that they must walk all day, but they can drive in a GOLF cart.\",\n \"Golf is not a sport Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, \\\"...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing...\\\" you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of \\\"Croquet\\\", rather than your spelling of \\\"Krokae\\\". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these \\\"sports\\\" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These \\\"sports\\\", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this \\\"sport\\\" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the \\\"sports\\\" you referenced being referred to as \\\"sports\\\" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these \\\"sports\\\" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the \\\"gentleman's sport\\\" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport.\",\n \"Golf is a sport I accept your argument. I say golf is not a sport.\",\n \"Golf is not a sport Just what is a sport? A sport is an activity or in some cases, a lifestyle, that requires a competitive drive, to be in top of your physical form, and to spend ample time studying your sport. Basketball requires months of conditioning, hours studying and practicing plays, and the desire to work with your team to be the on top of all your competition. Football and baseball require the same type of training and necessities. Even individual sports such as Cross-Country running require the desire to win, the countless hours of training to be on top of your physical form, the studying of different terrains. I'll even let NASCAR get in there; it requires the skill of being able to drive at high speeds without crashing, studying different racetracks, and definetely has that competitive edge. But golf? Come on. First of all, the only physical shape you need to be in is the ability to swing a golf club. Thats working a mere 2-3 muscles in your whole body. And you wont need to worry about walking all the way to your next spot after you hit that little white ball, because you've got your fancy golf cart to drive you there! Golf lacks the competitive drive that other sports have. Sure, you're playing against 18+ other people to get the lowest score, but you only have knowledge of one other person's score; your partners. You dont know when to come in the clutch, when to step it up, when to \\\"getcha head in the game\\\". Come on, people.\",\n \"Golf is a sport Hello this is a debate about golf. Some people on DDO think that golf is not a sport.I believe that statement is false. So I will be challenging someone to a debate about this topic.DEBATE FORMAT;3 roundsThe voting period is 6 months.You get 72 hours to argueUp to 8000 characters. The First round shall be only acceptance.The second round, own arguments.and third round, countering the opponent. Good luck and remember, PLEASE HAVE FUN!\",\n \"does golf is a real sport yes but thats why we are making this debate duh\",\n \"Golf is a sport Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play.\",\n \"Golf is not a sport Kenicks, I'm glad I finally get a debate against you. I have had a few nasty ones on this site mostly personal attacks because I am a conservative, mind if we just keep it clean and about Golf? we can debate about politics some other time. First of all I want to say that every definition I can pull up on the internet and the two dictionaries I have here at the house all come up with the same definition, that a sport is something that has guidelines, and rules, and requires skill along with SOME physical extortion. It is my opinion Kenicks that your views on a sport is sort of arrogant ( no harm intended). I think that as Americans we get blinded on that a sport consists of body builders, or martial arts, or who can hit the hardest. However if we are going to characterize sports into these categories we must remember we are not the only country, if we try and remove golf from sporting we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing the list can go on and on. These sporting competitions do not require much physical duress but they are a sport none the less. Now what you suggested chess, and poker, haha and beer pong would of course not be labeled as a sport. However Golfing that requires skill, and guidelines and rules, and SOME physical duress not nearly as much as tennis,football,or boxing but some fits the definition of a sport perfectly.\",\n \"Golf is not a physical sport Let me clarify my stance before you accept. I DO believe that golf is a sport in the strictest sense of the word, that is, in the competitive and recreational sense only. The definition of \\\"sport\\\": \\\"A source of diversion; recreation. \\\" This, I believe is the only way that golf meets the definition of \\\"sport. \\\" The word also has another definition: \\\"physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in. \\\" This is where golf fails to meet the definition of a sport- in the physical sense of the word. Here is the definition of \\\"physical\\\" that I will be using in this debate: \\\"characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. \\\" Golf does not meet this definition. It will be Con's job to argue against this stance. First round is for acceptance. Best of luck to my opponent. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...\",\n \"Is golf asport If your comparing Hogwarts (which is some made up thing in Harry Potter) then you shouldn't be in this debate. At least I am getting exercise instead of living in the fantasy world. . No one can fly, broom sticks are NOT magical, so get your head straight. Golf is considered a sport because there is physical exercise and the ability to play. It a hard sport to pick up on and be good at. If you think golf is just chasing after a white ball, and riding in a cart. then you are wrong. Why don't you go and play 18 holes, fast pace walking (NO CART ALLOWED), and then tell me how you feel. You might as well just quit now, because you will lose.\",\n \"Golf is not a sport First I will start with some definitions of \\\"Sports\\\" Sport: is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. I believe that these definitions prove my case all of these were taken from the Webster dictionary, the fact is a sport is something is an activity that involves skills be it throwing a ball 40 yards,running 100 miles, or hitting a tiny ball 400 yards into a hole. A sport is a competition involving rules and guidelines, and were skill comes into play. I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.\",\n \"Is golf asport Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet.\",\n \"Is golf a sport \\\"truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do\\\" \\\"suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ.\\\" These statements sound pretty opinionated to me. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy claiming that I'm using opinions as arguments when Pro is doing the exact same thing.I just assumed if he could do so then my opinions would be just as valid.\",\n \"Is golf a sport I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you.\",\n \"Golf is a sport ok golf is a sport.. just like anyother sport you're in the sun so no argument there! and people can cheer for you! have you not heard of pro golf tournaments? people go to watch them, and it is a big deal. And it is a sport just like any other it takes time and dedication to master not just anybody can go whack a ball and go pro!\",\n \"Golf is not a sport Kenicks, I thank you personally for the jab to keep me on my toes and the grammar error you so efficiently spotted out. Look,this vendetta you have over golf and the sport is understandable, it does seem silly that while soldiers are risking life,teachers are over worked, and hard working single business owners are struggling to make it threw financially that people are getting paid millions to hit a white ball into a hole, and this can be said about any sport and that is perfectly understandable. However your debate topic was not that golfers get over paid, or that golfers should not make as much money as baseball players, the point you started was that Golf is not a sport when in fact it is. Again your vendetta against the sport is based purely on your opinion. I have personal experience that golf is a game of extreme skill, and mental duress with some physical extortion. The fact is Golf meets the criteria according to every definition of \\\"sport\\\" available. Therefore in the minds of myself and the common English language golf is and should be considered a sport.\",\n \"Is golf a sport Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated \\\"Golf is the most boring activity known to man\\\" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is \\\"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\\\" So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact.\",\n \"Golf is a sport Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a \\\"game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. \\\" [1]Sport, is a \\\"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). \\\" [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word \\\"sport. \\\" Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal\",\n \"Is golf a sport Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\\\"For entertainment.\\\"Golf is the most boring activity known to man. And that's final.Case closed.\",\n \"does golf is a real sport hahaha okok So here is my point Obviously a sport... I believe that golf is a sport. But we can't say anything if we don't define what a sport is. Golf is \\\"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game).\\\" (Merriam-Webster) Golf clearly fits the definition provided by Merriam Webster. Finally, Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"}}},{"rowIdx":35,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Is cell phone radiation safe?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.\nQuite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. \"Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,\" Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans\nWell actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.","Should we be worried about cell phone raiation\nI think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think.","Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14\nI totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today\"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.","Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer.\nI will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer\"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults.\"http://www.theblaze.com...\"Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use\"http://www.mobiledia.com...\"One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones.\"http://news.yahoo.com...\"350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone \"subscribers\" and those who didn't have a phone,\"http://health.usnews.com...\"to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.\"http://www.cancer.gov...\"The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors\"http://gizmodo.com...\"It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit \"non-ionizing radiation\" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells\"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;\"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain\"http://www.itwire.com...\"Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer.\"http://www.bbc.co.uk...\"In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls.\"http://www.cancer.org...\"A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones.\"http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...\"Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer\"http://www.usaweekend.com...-\"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987\"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer.","They can cause cancer\nWe all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans\n(OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body\"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)"],"string":"[\n \"They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.\\nQuite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. \\\"Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,\\\" Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans\\nWell actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.\",\n \"Should we be worried about cell phone raiation\\nI think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think.\",\n \"Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14\\nI totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today\\\"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.\",\n \"Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer.\\nI will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer\\\"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults.\\\"http://www.theblaze.com...\\\"Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use\\\"http://www.mobiledia.com...\\\"One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones.\\\"http://news.yahoo.com...\\\"350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone \\\"subscribers\\\" and those who didn't have a phone,\\\"http://health.usnews.com...\\\"to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.\\\"http://www.cancer.gov...\\\"The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors\\\"http://gizmodo.com...\\\"It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit \\\"non-ionizing radiation\\\" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells\\\"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;\\\"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain\\\"http://www.itwire.com...\\\"Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer.\\\"http://www.bbc.co.uk...\\\"In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls.\\\"http://www.cancer.org...\\\"A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones.\\\"http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...\\\"Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer\\\"http://www.usaweekend.com...-\\\"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987\\\"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer.\",\n \"They can cause cancer\\nWe all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans\\n(OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body\\\"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones Think about cell phones in the way that it can teach teens responsibility. I do understand what you said about the risk of being the victim of cyber bullying. However, we should teach teens to learn to have responsibility over everything they do with their cell phone, instead taking away cell phone from teens. If we education teens properly about the responsible way of using cell phone, the chance of being cyber bullying might be reduce. Just taking a way phone do not solve the problem. In addition, as I said earlier, cell phones are now capable of monitoring the location of teens. And with all those App on the phone, parents and police can easily find out the location of lost child or kidnapped child. So, we should teens to have phones.","Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005 - \"Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.","Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in ter... Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in terms of impaired concentration and worse reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal.","Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children.... Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.\\ Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.\\","Mobile phones make sure that we are safe Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.","Solar energy is safer than nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has two major risks: radioactive poisoning (particularly of nuclear energy plant workers) and of nuclear plant meltdowns. Solar energy does not suffer from any safety issues.","Cell phone in cars bans are harmful to employers \"New Hands-Free Cell Phone Law Affects Employers\". Legal Alert. June 2008","More difficult to enforce hands-free cell phone ban Lauren Weinstein. \"Cell-Phone Ban Not a Good Call\". Wired. September 12th, 2002 - \"Most politicians know that trying to ban hands-free cell-phone use would mean cops trying to pull over everyone they see mumbling to themselves.\"","People will adjust to not using cell phones \"Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain\". Examiner. 3 July 2008 - \"California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile.\"","Texting and Driving Should be Illegal There may be a small percentage of accidents resulting in cellular use, but there is no denying that there is an amount of accidents caused by cellular use. 0.6% may not seem like much, but it is still a worthy statistic. There is also no denying that texting and driving does distract a driver, and poses a significant threat to themselves, along with others. I'm a man of statistics, and these are very surprising to me. On the contrary, there simply is a percentage of accidents caused by cellular use. This is non-arguable. Why should something that causes accidents be tolerated when it is completely unnecessary? There is no issue with briefly pulling over, out of harm's way, to send a text or make a phone call. This irritation with texting and driving absolutely does translate to other distractions. Any distraction while driving is dangerous. I have witnessed people reading while driving. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense possibly think this to be okay? But with this general frustration for irresponsible driving comes an equal frustration for texting and driving. I do believe driving is a responsibility. Why else would a person be required to pass a written, and driving test prior to receiving their license? Yes it is somewhat of a privilege. But in order to achieve and maintain that privilege comes a very large amount of responsibility.","Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \"A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly.\"","Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today I believe that cell phones are doing way more harm than good. When you walk down the street all that you see is people walking down the street with their phones in their faces. When we didn't have cell phones people actually talked to each other","Anything can be abused, including pencils and paper. New technology always carries some risks but w... Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, gambling and even cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.","children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.","Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) I start my argument. Best of luck to my respectable opponent :)Health HazardsIn today's times, many parents give even their toddlers tablets and smart phones to play with. Now how could these young ones be expected not to be addicted to something even a mature adult gets addicted to? \"An interesting experiment conducted by researchers at the Center for Toddler Development at Barnard College, showed that children between 18 to 36 months old, when given an iPad to play with, were so absorbed, that they did not respond to their names.\" Smart phones cause addiction at any age, the difference lies in the level of maturity of the person. Now the person might become mature at an age earlier than 15, or not become mentally mature even after crossing 20, but the age 15-16 years has been selected by me as an average for when most people tend to become more responsible, i.e. more mature. AGE 0-5 y/o (toddlers and young kids (brain is in developing phase))If smart phones become an addiction at an early age, they do more harm than good. Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror. A child's brain tissues are more absorbent than an adult's, meaning that the radiations will do more harm to the young kids. Bone marrow of an average child absorbs 10X more radiation than an adult's. And as anyone would know, radiations come with a chance of causing diseases such as cancer.Brain development is negatively affected.Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good, according to the common sense of a sane person. The young kids' brains are developing, they will obviously develop better if they face the physical world themselves, by using their own senses.The counter argument for this is that their are educational games for the kids, but the use of mobile devices in particular online games should support imaginative play instead of trying to use them as a way to keep children busy, which is normally the case.AGE 5-10 y/o ( young students)Hindrance to concentration and focus.Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction. A simple 'ding' for a message can and does shift focus of people (more of kids than adults). An average kid will, after checking the message, engage in online chats, games, etc. for the so called '5 minutes'(which ultimately turn out to be hours) before they realise they have not completed the project they had to submit the next day or did not study for the big test the next day. Though, the only difference this causes is that now they kill time by chatting and playing the games while stressing about what will happen the next day, instead of killing time with a calm mind which they were doing earlier.Reduced social skills and face to face interaction.Have you ever read about people who do terrible in interviews and get rejected? Funny stories, eh? This happens mainly because of lack of social skills. And guess what smart phones help in building ? THE LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS.The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests (Do you love learning? Are you good in athletics? Are you an all rounder?) And again guess what smart phones do? STOP ALL OF THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS FROM HAPPENING IN THE NATURAL WAY!AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) The tweenagers have hormonal changes taking place in them. They are naturally more irritable and irrational. Sleeplessness, procrastination, stress DOES NOT help, believe me, rather, these just help to make them more irritable. Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). They thus waste an important part of life on worthless activities. Now, the reason most kids get smart phones is because of safety reasons, to be always connected with the parents. But a simple cell phone does exactly the same, help ensure safety without a myriad of disadvantages which a smart phone poses. Till the age of 15 though, most people have developed to become responsible and have the important values hard wired within. Now they are ready to handle the otherwise 'poisoned chalice' to gain more advantages than the inevitable disadvantages. *SOURCES WILL BE MENTIONED IN LAST ROUND*","People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Victory! Cell phones are good for the enviorment because they kill people. Less people means less global climate change. \"A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”\" biologicaldiversity.orgAs seen by Al Gore's Inconvient Tooth Global climate change is a real threat. \"A documentary on Al Gore's campaign to make the issue of global warming a recognized problem worldwide.\" imdb.comhttp://www.imdb.com...","Cell phones should be allowed in schools preferably elementary and middle schools. My opponent has provided precautions that can be taken in order to prevent cell phones from being a distraction- turning phones to vibrate, placing phones on a teacher's desk, and the right of a teacher to bring a student to the principal's office or another authority to check cell phone history. Firstly, none of these precautions will eliminate distractions in school. If students have their phones on vibrate, and they receive a phone call or text message in class, they will be likely to check to see who has contacted them- therefore disrupting their own attention during class time. If students place their phones on a teacher's desk, the phone could still potentially go off during class, if someone else tries to contact them. And if a teacher has to bring a student to the principal's office in order to check cell phone history, that in itself is wasting vast amounts of class time and is a huge disruption to the class if the teacher has to bring the student out of the room, to the school authorities, and then return to the classroom. Secondly, and more importantly, if these precautions are going to be taken, I see no reasons given to have cell phones in school at all. My opponent has given methods to eliminate distractions if cell phones are in school, but has not explained why cell phones should be in school in the first place. He provides potential methods of preventing distractions from cell phones, but the best way to prevent distractions from cell phones is to not have cell phones at school at all. Therefore, since cell phones do cause distractions in class, and there have been no stated benefits to having cell phones in class, cell phones should not be permitted in elementary and middle schools.","Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[8][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.","Kids should have cell phones At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O","Cell phone ban is unnecessary; careless driving laws are sufficient This means that if someone is driving dangerously through inappropriate use of their mobile phone, then the police can already prosecute them. Rather than introduce a new law, the police should instead enforce the existing rules more thoroughly. This could be coupled with energetic advertising campaigns to warn people of a range of potentially dangerous driving habits.","Any risk of another Chernobyl or Mile High is intolerable \"The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: \"The Three mile Island and Chernobyl accidents should never be downplayed. The Chernobyl disaster is perhaps one of the worst in human history. Serious radioactive contamination spread over 150,000 square kilometers in Byelorussia, Ukraine and Russia. Radioactive clouds deposited radiation thousands of kilometers away. Hundreds of thousands people had to be evacuated, and millions more were left to live in areas that were dangerous to their health and lives. Moreover, scientific studies have shown that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers. [...] Renewable energy, on the other hand, is the cleanest, safest and most reliable form of power generation.\"","Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Mobile Technology creates problems in various situations in every day life. Those areas concern mental health, cancer, distractions, addiction, stress, cyber bullying, and social disorders. The use of cell phones and other mobile technology (iPads, iPods, tablets, laptops, etc) has defeated the purpose of social gatherings, personal connections (face-to-face), and physical activity. It has also largely decreased self-esteem levels, increased mental health issues and stress levels. Due to these issues, mobile technology has largely impacted human life in a negative way.","This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. I believe that children should not own smartphones because of the huge amount of radiation constantly 'penetrating' , the word my opponent would prefer me to use, the brain and other fragile body parts, and because most parents do not mind when and what their children use their phones for, and to those parents who do, I comend you.","Fumbling for ringing phone while driving is dangerous \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"even more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving is fumbling in a pocket or handbag for a ringing phone while travelling at 100kmh on the motorway.\"","Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children.... Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.","cell phone being banned while driving I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers, Cell phones often cause accidents, and Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are.","Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \"Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.\"","Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. \"The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones.\" - \"The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits.\"","children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link \"cell phone use with any adverse health problems\" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...","mobile phones are a curse for todays youth \"mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just Fashion\" -First off, you have not shown why something that is simply for fashion is a \"curse for todays youth\". To follow this same line of reasoning will mean most of our shoes, shirts, pants, underwear (;D) and other accessories one can think of should be done away with. I mean, heck, the only reason people dress fashionably is mainly for the reception they will get from their peers. \"youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off....\" -That's not the only reason why youngsters buy mobile phones. The main and initial point of buying it is for ease-of-access for calling people, which we should all know comes very handy in the 21st century. Things such as additional applications, music, and trendy looks came after. So even if my opponent successful argued that youngsters who buy fashionable phones is a curse to today's youth, still has no bearing on whether or not mobile phones are a curse to today's youth. \"it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,...it is a threat to life...\" -They've done exhaustive reports on this. In a 10 year study, they showed no conclusive link between cell phone usage and cancer. Though the possibility of long term usage may cause cancer, it has yet to be shown. [1] Even so, many new standards and advices are being developed and spread around, to lower to risk of health hazards. [2] In conclusion, the benefits of mobile phones greatly outnumber the costs. That is why mobile phones are not a curse for today's youth. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...","THW ban the civilian use of nulear power Health Impacts The waste produced by nuclear power emits ionizing radiation, which can cause cancer and other adverse health effects in humans. Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur externally from material released into the air, or internally from the consumption of contaminated food and water. Scientists have concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that even the smallest dose is capable of contributing to the development of cancer.","Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties. Mobile phones don’t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones.","Should we use cell phones in school you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch","mobile phones are a curse for todays youth mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just 'Fashion' youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off.... it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,... it is a threat to life...","Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.","Solar radiation is no major danger to Mars astronauts. Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, over short periods of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; inside of the storm shelter - 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem. In total, radiation doses of 52.0 and 58.4 rem taken on the missions, are well below dangerous thresholds -- even were they to come all at once. [4]","People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Thank you for your response. I am not proposing that people should buy cell phones, but I am proposing that people should use them responsibly. Yes, it is true the cell phone is such a great and convenient device, but the overuse of them is not ideal. People should still be buying cell phones, so there would be nothing wrong with the marketing. Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement. Thank you.","Full-body scanners pose less risk than most natural radiation. The doses delivered by the scanners are tiny by any standard. Passengers would get the same dose in a few minutes in a high-altitude jet, where most of the earth’s atmosphere is not available to shield people from the cosmic rays.[18]","People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. \"Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement.\" Con Yeah, but if you watch An inconvenient tooth by Al Gore you will learn that one of the causes of Global Climate change is overpopulation. The dangerous situation that cellphones create in cars is good for the environment.","Cell Phones are worse than other distractions Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use. Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed. Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395","Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. Recent news articles and media outlets have surmised that cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. http://www.cnn.com... This debate will prove, one way or another, if the media has a foundation for making the aforementioned claim.","legalise the use of cell phones in cars Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard","This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones. Thanks for Pro to accept.Hello today our topic is that This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Mobile Phones. I disagree because of 4 reasons. My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use. My second reason is that Mobile phones are too expensive for children. My third reason is that Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school. My fourth reason is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. First I will tell you about Mobile Phones for children. The United Nations estimates that there are currently as many as 4.1 billion active mobile phone subscriptions. Modern mobile phones can perform a wide variety of functions, such as taking and sending photographs and video, playing music and games, and surfing the internet and accessing social networks. Their main use, however, remains for voice calls and for texting short messages. As prices of both phones and calls have come down in the past ten years or so with increased competition, they have become much more affordable for young people. This has raised questions about whether children should own phones, and if they should be allowed to take them into school. Schools in different countries, and within countries, take very different views on this issue. In many European schools, especially in Scandinavia, mobile phone technologies are actively used in education and to communication with students. Other schools allow them to be carried, but say they must never be turned on in school hours. Some (for example, New York schools) ban them entirely. Proponents of children being given mobile phones argue that they keep them safe, within reach of their parents at all times and are essential for maintaining friendships and social cohesion, whilst opponents maintain that they are susceptible to abuse and do not have the best interests of the child at heart.Now I will go on my first argument that My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use.“There are possible potential long-term health risks from using mobile phones. In May 2011, the World Health Organisation classified the radiation emitted by handsets as ‘possibly carcinogenic’. It has been widely accepted that the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones are absorbed into the body, ‘much of it by the head when the headset is held to the air’. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them. As Christopher Wild, who headed a study into the health risks of mobile use, instructed, ‘it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting’. The damage, despite not being conclusive, is potentially serious enough to warrant caution and preve.”Now I will move on my second argument which is Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are expensive and charges soon mount up because ‘what kids really want to do is text-message their friends, download music or play games’.[1] Many young people run up big bills their parents have to pay. A few rich families might be able to afford this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend on their cell phones are an uncontrollable expense they cannot cope with. Others are under peer pressure to get the newest, most stylish phones with all the latest gadgets.Banning mobile phones would at least partially reduce the financial strain on poorer families.Now I will move on my third argument which is Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school.Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students’ attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce – students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, in 2005 60% of cases involving taking unauthorized items into exam rooms involved mobile phones, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.Now I will move on my fourth argument which is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, sexting, gambling and cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. In 2004, British mobile phone operators, in an effort to combat mobile abuse, enacted regulation that prevents children purchasing phones with unlimited internet access Though this demonstrates a problem has been identified, the solution does not address phones bought by parents for their children or children who already own phones with unlimited internet access. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.For these reasons we urge you to vote for CON.Sources:http://idebate.org...;","Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]","There are possible safety concerns When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children’s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.","Using a Mobile Phone While Driving Should Be Banned Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...","Cell phones even though cell phones are great they can also produce hearing problems and brain damage. because phones are becoming so great more people are getting them and peole are spending more time on them cell phones kill honeybees.....these days honey is used by hr8 patients & they would also someday die if this is continuously followed.","Should students use phones in school Did u know wifi is actually a form of radiation? The wifi waves are electro-magnetic and a study published by Princeton university shows that they actually can be harmful to children. Yes children with disabilities can benefit from specific programs but why do they need their own personal devices to do so? Technology is very important in the modern day but schools need to find a way to balance between traditional schooling while keeping up with our rapidly changing world. BYOD isn't the way.","Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives \"Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says\". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - \"In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving.\"","Cell Phones Are Dangerous Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.","Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets \"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload.\" LA Times. 30 June 2008 - \"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.\"","cell phone being banned while driving \"I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. \" Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. \"Cell phones often cause accidents. \" No, they don't. \"Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. \" Prove it. Thank you.","Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now.\"","should kid own phones with service I will be arguing that children should not be allowed to possess phones with service. My opponent's first and only point regarded one's safety \"in cases of emergencies or someone got hurt or sick or if you got lost or need help and stuff like that.\" However, one does not need a phone with service to contact the police department, 911. As part of the \"Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,\" all phones, with or without service, must be capable of calling 911 (S1).Studies suggest that cellphones are unhealthy for youths. They pose many healthy concerns which may impact them greatly in the future. For example, in a study published by the NRPB in December 2004, scientists found that there were indications that radiation from cellphones may damage DNA. A study from April 2004 shows a correlation between mobile phone use and auditory nerve tumors, and research in 2003 links cellphones to impaired brain function (S2). Scientists have concluded that cellphones may double a child's risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain, damage cell membranes, radically decrease cellular production of energy and disrupt the communication between cells (S3). Cellphones are also a great deterrent of sleep. In a study of 10,000 16 to 19 year olds, researchers in Norway foudn that the longer a young person spent looking at an electronic screen before going to bed, the worse quality sleep they had. Those who spent more than four hours a day looking at screens had a 49% greater risk of taking longer than an hour to sleep and were 350% more likely to sleep for under five hours a night (S4). Being that sleep is crucial for youths, for physical and psychological development and for energy, many researchers discourage children from using cellphones.Sources:S1) https://www.fcc.gov...S2) https://www.newscientist.com...S3) http://articles.mercola.com...S4) http://www.independent.co.uk...","This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. So we've reached the end of our debate. Clearly there are speculations and concerns issued by many incuding parents, teachers, peadriticians and scientists in regards to our motion. I however still am subscribing to the belief that that the advantages for children to own smart phones outweigh the minor disadvantages that come with it. To sum up, my three points that have been taken into account of our debate are to promote the intellectual development of children ,parallel to The Children's Right, economic and financial reasons and lastly to assimilate the element of latest technology among children to mould technology-savvy generation. Now for my opponent, I am well aware of the fragility of children's biology and how they can be obsessed with smart phones. That's why I did mention parents' role in this matter earlier. They should always control the internet and calls usage by their children. Parents should always remind their children of the danger of phones-oriented radiation to them and make sure that at night when they are sleeping their smart phones are placed at a safe distance. Besides that, if inability to stay focus in class becomes a problem, simple , parents should take away their phones and keep them during school hours return to them after school. In a nutshell, parents should allow their children to own a smart phone. Bear in mind that everything if used excessively can be dangerous and that applies to this situation. With enough control and support by parents, I believe that children can benefit the best from having this wonderful piece of technology! That's all from me, thank you for your time! I really appreciate it. Ps: to con, radiation doesn't \"'flow\"\"' in blood vein. It penetrates through your clothes and if powerful enough ( with strong penetrating power) through your skin.","Phones Adding to the debate on phones being dangerous and causing people to be inattentive, my theory is that phones prove we are pushing further into the future. Although, the effects of being on a small screen do cause bad eyes etc., if there is a chance that these companies have the abilities to fix that problem, then it would push technology one step further onto the safer side. For example, I saw a stranger cross the road a week or so ago, and they was being shouted at due to the fact she was nearly hit by a car. That shows that being oblivious isn\"t something that can be fixed by Samsung or Iphone, but taking phones away will ruin businesses and would throw technology backwards. It is not the phones being detrimental, because if it wasn\"t bad for your eyes and brain, then it is just the idiocy and desperate need of phones. So it is us taking one fad to an extreme, which causes people to blame the phones for distracting them. I believe that if people had more self control, then they wouldn\"t be getting distracted by the irresistible buzz of phones. My conclusion is that people have made a fallacy out of phones, believing that phones are relied on to keep us sane. For example, when my Dad was a child, the only phones were either in red boxes, or attached to a wire. When he was in his early 30s, they were bricks, and now, he acts like they have a completely different purpose.","Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel \"worried or uncomfortable\" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated \"they felt the need to switch off\" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.","This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. 1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be \"notes\" or \"the interactive textbook\". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...","Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned. Further, \"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.[1] [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story","Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.","Mobile Phones Used by Children Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...","Ban cell phones for people under 16 A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that \"The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women.\" (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.","the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.","Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks.[1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads. It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible. Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer.[2] [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414","Society can't \"trust judgement\" of drivers with cell phones \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction.\"","Drivers don't get better with practice on cell phones \"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show.\" LA Times. 30 June 2008 - \"'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently.\"","The use of a mobile phone requires a social life. Studies continue to emphatically expose the adverse effects of cell phone radiation; without refutation. [[http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cell-phone-damages-crotch.html]] Tell that to all those crack callers I keep getting missed calls from. Badgering strangers or not is possible on both the internet and on a mobile. The difference is privacy policies and Cyber-laws protect the average internet browser; whereas, there are no protections for those being harassed on their cellphone. And no I've tried the add to screen list option; the calls still come but the phone doesn't ring and calls I 'do' want to receive are impeded. all you need is a phone number; some creeps even dial in random numbers and then wait and see who picks up. Cell phones are even more versatile than public payphones for those who change Sims often; so they don't worry about call tracing. This is why cellphones are central to crime and terrorism. Demo: Get disposable phone; insert disposable Sim Call anyone from anywhere.(fellow criminals, stalker target, person to blackmail etc) Give phone to complete stranger or throw it in a trash bin; from which any random person can pick it up. Avoid being traced.","Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90","Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.","the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it","children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........","Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.","Are cellphones safe They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.","Banning cell phones in cars Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.","mobile phones are a curse for todays youth \"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.\" -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. \".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.\" --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.","Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S. Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395","children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........","children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit \"radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation\" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that \"radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells\" and has not been found to \"cause cancer in animals\" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. \"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.\" Source: https://www.cancer.gov...","Cell Phones Are Dangerous Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.","Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.","mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.","Are cellphones safe the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved","cell phone use good or bad state your debate Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. \"I derived this information from a reliable website.\" Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is \".org\" or \".gov\"! Anyone can just get a \".com\", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: \"A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it\"s not clear if they\"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain\"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.\" https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a \".org\" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma \" a specific type of brain tumor \" for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.\" https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a \".org\" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.","Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.","Cell Phones Are Dangerous \\\\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\\\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands","the increase personal safety Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!","Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Obviously it's not healthy, but the amount of radiation is so low, there really wont be any side effects."],"string":"[\n \"Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones Think about cell phones in the way that it can teach teens responsibility. I do understand what you said about the risk of being the victim of cyber bullying. However, we should teach teens to learn to have responsibility over everything they do with their cell phone, instead taking away cell phone from teens. If we education teens properly about the responsible way of using cell phone, the chance of being cyber bullying might be reduce. Just taking a way phone do not solve the problem. In addition, as I said earlier, cell phones are now capable of monitoring the location of teens. And with all those App on the phone, parents and police can easily find out the location of lost child or kidnapped child. So, we should teens to have phones.\",\n \"Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005 - \\\"Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.\",\n \"Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in ter... Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in terms of impaired concentration and worse reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal.\",\n \"Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children.... Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.\\\\ Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.\\\\\",\n \"Mobile phones make sure that we are safe Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.\",\n \"Solar energy is safer than nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has two major risks: radioactive poisoning (particularly of nuclear energy plant workers) and of nuclear plant meltdowns. Solar energy does not suffer from any safety issues.\",\n \"Cell phone in cars bans are harmful to employers \\\"New Hands-Free Cell Phone Law Affects Employers\\\". Legal Alert. June 2008\",\n \"More difficult to enforce hands-free cell phone ban Lauren Weinstein. \\\"Cell-Phone Ban Not a Good Call\\\". Wired. September 12th, 2002 - \\\"Most politicians know that trying to ban hands-free cell-phone use would mean cops trying to pull over everyone they see mumbling to themselves.\\\"\",\n \"People will adjust to not using cell phones \\\"Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain\\\". Examiner. 3 July 2008 - \\\"California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile.\\\"\",\n \"Texting and Driving Should be Illegal There may be a small percentage of accidents resulting in cellular use, but there is no denying that there is an amount of accidents caused by cellular use. 0.6% may not seem like much, but it is still a worthy statistic. There is also no denying that texting and driving does distract a driver, and poses a significant threat to themselves, along with others. I'm a man of statistics, and these are very surprising to me. On the contrary, there simply is a percentage of accidents caused by cellular use. This is non-arguable. Why should something that causes accidents be tolerated when it is completely unnecessary? There is no issue with briefly pulling over, out of harm's way, to send a text or make a phone call. This irritation with texting and driving absolutely does translate to other distractions. Any distraction while driving is dangerous. I have witnessed people reading while driving. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense possibly think this to be okay? But with this general frustration for irresponsible driving comes an equal frustration for texting and driving. I do believe driving is a responsibility. Why else would a person be required to pass a written, and driving test prior to receiving their license? Yes it is somewhat of a privilege. But in order to achieve and maintain that privilege comes a very large amount of responsibility.\",\n \"Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \\\"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\\\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \\\"A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly.\\\"\",\n \"Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today I believe that cell phones are doing way more harm than good. When you walk down the street all that you see is people walking down the street with their phones in their faces. When we didn't have cell phones people actually talked to each other\",\n \"Anything can be abused, including pencils and paper. New technology always carries some risks but w... Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, gambling and even cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.\",\n \"children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.\",\n \"Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) I start my argument. Best of luck to my respectable opponent :)Health HazardsIn today's times, many parents give even their toddlers tablets and smart phones to play with. Now how could these young ones be expected not to be addicted to something even a mature adult gets addicted to? \\\"An interesting experiment conducted by researchers at the Center for Toddler Development at Barnard College, showed that children between 18 to 36 months old, when given an iPad to play with, were so absorbed, that they did not respond to their names.\\\" Smart phones cause addiction at any age, the difference lies in the level of maturity of the person. Now the person might become mature at an age earlier than 15, or not become mentally mature even after crossing 20, but the age 15-16 years has been selected by me as an average for when most people tend to become more responsible, i.e. more mature. AGE 0-5 y/o (toddlers and young kids (brain is in developing phase))If smart phones become an addiction at an early age, they do more harm than good. Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror. A child's brain tissues are more absorbent than an adult's, meaning that the radiations will do more harm to the young kids. Bone marrow of an average child absorbs 10X more radiation than an adult's. And as anyone would know, radiations come with a chance of causing diseases such as cancer.Brain development is negatively affected.Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good, according to the common sense of a sane person. The young kids' brains are developing, they will obviously develop better if they face the physical world themselves, by using their own senses.The counter argument for this is that their are educational games for the kids, but the use of mobile devices in particular online games should support imaginative play instead of trying to use them as a way to keep children busy, which is normally the case.AGE 5-10 y/o ( young students)Hindrance to concentration and focus.Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction. A simple 'ding' for a message can and does shift focus of people (more of kids than adults). An average kid will, after checking the message, engage in online chats, games, etc. for the so called '5 minutes'(which ultimately turn out to be hours) before they realise they have not completed the project they had to submit the next day or did not study for the big test the next day. Though, the only difference this causes is that now they kill time by chatting and playing the games while stressing about what will happen the next day, instead of killing time with a calm mind which they were doing earlier.Reduced social skills and face to face interaction.Have you ever read about people who do terrible in interviews and get rejected? Funny stories, eh? This happens mainly because of lack of social skills. And guess what smart phones help in building ? THE LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS.The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests (Do you love learning? Are you good in athletics? Are you an all rounder?) And again guess what smart phones do? STOP ALL OF THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS FROM HAPPENING IN THE NATURAL WAY!AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) The tweenagers have hormonal changes taking place in them. They are naturally more irritable and irrational. Sleeplessness, procrastination, stress DOES NOT help, believe me, rather, these just help to make them more irritable. Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). They thus waste an important part of life on worthless activities. Now, the reason most kids get smart phones is because of safety reasons, to be always connected with the parents. But a simple cell phone does exactly the same, help ensure safety without a myriad of disadvantages which a smart phone poses. Till the age of 15 though, most people have developed to become responsible and have the important values hard wired within. Now they are ready to handle the otherwise 'poisoned chalice' to gain more advantages than the inevitable disadvantages. *SOURCES WILL BE MENTIONED IN LAST ROUND*\",\n \"People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Victory! Cell phones are good for the enviorment because they kill people. Less people means less global climate change. \\\"A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”\\\" biologicaldiversity.orgAs seen by Al Gore's Inconvient Tooth Global climate change is a real threat. \\\"A documentary on Al Gore's campaign to make the issue of global warming a recognized problem worldwide.\\\" imdb.comhttp://www.imdb.com...\",\n \"Cell phones should be allowed in schools preferably elementary and middle schools. My opponent has provided precautions that can be taken in order to prevent cell phones from being a distraction- turning phones to vibrate, placing phones on a teacher's desk, and the right of a teacher to bring a student to the principal's office or another authority to check cell phone history. Firstly, none of these precautions will eliminate distractions in school. If students have their phones on vibrate, and they receive a phone call or text message in class, they will be likely to check to see who has contacted them- therefore disrupting their own attention during class time. If students place their phones on a teacher's desk, the phone could still potentially go off during class, if someone else tries to contact them. And if a teacher has to bring a student to the principal's office in order to check cell phone history, that in itself is wasting vast amounts of class time and is a huge disruption to the class if the teacher has to bring the student out of the room, to the school authorities, and then return to the classroom. Secondly, and more importantly, if these precautions are going to be taken, I see no reasons given to have cell phones in school at all. My opponent has given methods to eliminate distractions if cell phones are in school, but has not explained why cell phones should be in school in the first place. He provides potential methods of preventing distractions from cell phones, but the best way to prevent distractions from cell phones is to not have cell phones at school at all. Therefore, since cell phones do cause distractions in class, and there have been no stated benefits to having cell phones in class, cell phones should not be permitted in elementary and middle schools.\",\n \"Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[8][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.\",\n \"Kids should have cell phones At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O\",\n \"Cell phone ban is unnecessary; careless driving laws are sufficient This means that if someone is driving dangerously through inappropriate use of their mobile phone, then the police can already prosecute them. Rather than introduce a new law, the police should instead enforce the existing rules more thoroughly. This could be coupled with energetic advertising campaigns to warn people of a range of potentially dangerous driving habits.\",\n \"Any risk of another Chernobyl or Mile High is intolerable \\\"The case against nuclear power\\\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: \\\"The Three mile Island and Chernobyl accidents should never be downplayed. The Chernobyl disaster is perhaps one of the worst in human history. Serious radioactive contamination spread over 150,000 square kilometers in Byelorussia, Ukraine and Russia. Radioactive clouds deposited radiation thousands of kilometers away. Hundreds of thousands people had to be evacuated, and millions more were left to live in areas that were dangerous to their health and lives. Moreover, scientific studies have shown that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers. [...] Renewable energy, on the other hand, is the cleanest, safest and most reliable form of power generation.\\\"\",\n \"Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Mobile Technology creates problems in various situations in every day life. Those areas concern mental health, cancer, distractions, addiction, stress, cyber bullying, and social disorders. The use of cell phones and other mobile technology (iPads, iPods, tablets, laptops, etc) has defeated the purpose of social gatherings, personal connections (face-to-face), and physical activity. It has also largely decreased self-esteem levels, increased mental health issues and stress levels. Due to these issues, mobile technology has largely impacted human life in a negative way.\",\n \"This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. I believe that children should not own smartphones because of the huge amount of radiation constantly 'penetrating' , the word my opponent would prefer me to use, the brain and other fragile body parts, and because most parents do not mind when and what their children use their phones for, and to those parents who do, I comend you.\",\n \"Fumbling for ringing phone while driving is dangerous \\\"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\\\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \\\"even more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving is fumbling in a pocket or handbag for a ringing phone while travelling at 100kmh on the motorway.\\\"\",\n \"Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children.... Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.\",\n \"cell phone being banned while driving I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers, Cell phones often cause accidents, and Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are.\",\n \"Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \\\"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\\\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \\\"Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.\\\"\",\n \"Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. \\\"The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones.\\\" - \\\"The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits.\\\"\",\n \"children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link \\\"cell phone use with any adverse health problems\\\" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...\",\n \"mobile phones are a curse for todays youth \\\"mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just Fashion\\\" -First off, you have not shown why something that is simply for fashion is a \\\"curse for todays youth\\\". To follow this same line of reasoning will mean most of our shoes, shirts, pants, underwear (;D) and other accessories one can think of should be done away with. I mean, heck, the only reason people dress fashionably is mainly for the reception they will get from their peers. \\\"youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off....\\\" -That's not the only reason why youngsters buy mobile phones. The main and initial point of buying it is for ease-of-access for calling people, which we should all know comes very handy in the 21st century. Things such as additional applications, music, and trendy looks came after. So even if my opponent successful argued that youngsters who buy fashionable phones is a curse to today's youth, still has no bearing on whether or not mobile phones are a curse to today's youth. \\\"it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,...it is a threat to life...\\\" -They've done exhaustive reports on this. In a 10 year study, they showed no conclusive link between cell phone usage and cancer. Though the possibility of long term usage may cause cancer, it has yet to be shown. [1] Even so, many new standards and advices are being developed and spread around, to lower to risk of health hazards. [2] In conclusion, the benefits of mobile phones greatly outnumber the costs. That is why mobile phones are not a curse for today's youth. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"THW ban the civilian use of nulear power Health Impacts The waste produced by nuclear power emits ionizing radiation, which can cause cancer and other adverse health effects in humans. Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur externally from material released into the air, or internally from the consumption of contaminated food and water. Scientists have concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that even the smallest dose is capable of contributing to the development of cancer.\",\n \"Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties. Mobile phones don’t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones.\",\n \"Should we use cell phones in school you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch\",\n \"mobile phones are a curse for todays youth mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just 'Fashion' youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off.... it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,... it is a threat to life...\",\n \"Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.\",\n \"Solar radiation is no major danger to Mars astronauts. Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, over short periods of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; inside of the storm shelter - 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem. In total, radiation doses of 52.0 and 58.4 rem taken on the missions, are well below dangerous thresholds -- even were they to come all at once. [4]\",\n \"People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Thank you for your response. I am not proposing that people should buy cell phones, but I am proposing that people should use them responsibly. Yes, it is true the cell phone is such a great and convenient device, but the overuse of them is not ideal. People should still be buying cell phones, so there would be nothing wrong with the marketing. Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement. Thank you.\",\n \"Full-body scanners pose less risk than most natural radiation. The doses delivered by the scanners are tiny by any standard. Passengers would get the same dose in a few minutes in a high-altitude jet, where most of the earth’s atmosphere is not available to shield people from the cosmic rays.[18]\",\n \"People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. \\\"Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement.\\\" Con Yeah, but if you watch An inconvenient tooth by Al Gore you will learn that one of the causes of Global Climate change is overpopulation. The dangerous situation that cellphones create in cars is good for the environment.\",\n \"Cell Phones are worse than other distractions Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use. Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed. Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395\",\n \"Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. Recent news articles and media outlets have surmised that cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. http://www.cnn.com... This debate will prove, one way or another, if the media has a foundation for making the aforementioned claim.\",\n \"legalise the use of cell phones in cars Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard\",\n \"This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones. Thanks for Pro to accept.Hello today our topic is that This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Mobile Phones. I disagree because of 4 reasons. My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use. My second reason is that Mobile phones are too expensive for children. My third reason is that Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school. My fourth reason is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. First I will tell you about Mobile Phones for children. The United Nations estimates that there are currently as many as 4.1 billion active mobile phone subscriptions. Modern mobile phones can perform a wide variety of functions, such as taking and sending photographs and video, playing music and games, and surfing the internet and accessing social networks. Their main use, however, remains for voice calls and for texting short messages. As prices of both phones and calls have come down in the past ten years or so with increased competition, they have become much more affordable for young people. This has raised questions about whether children should own phones, and if they should be allowed to take them into school. Schools in different countries, and within countries, take very different views on this issue. In many European schools, especially in Scandinavia, mobile phone technologies are actively used in education and to communication with students. Other schools allow them to be carried, but say they must never be turned on in school hours. Some (for example, New York schools) ban them entirely. Proponents of children being given mobile phones argue that they keep them safe, within reach of their parents at all times and are essential for maintaining friendships and social cohesion, whilst opponents maintain that they are susceptible to abuse and do not have the best interests of the child at heart.Now I will go on my first argument that My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use.“There are possible potential long-term health risks from using mobile phones. In May 2011, the World Health Organisation classified the radiation emitted by handsets as ‘possibly carcinogenic’. It has been widely accepted that the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones are absorbed into the body, ‘much of it by the head when the headset is held to the air’. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them. As Christopher Wild, who headed a study into the health risks of mobile use, instructed, ‘it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting’. The damage, despite not being conclusive, is potentially serious enough to warrant caution and preve.”Now I will move on my second argument which is Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are expensive and charges soon mount up because ‘what kids really want to do is text-message their friends, download music or play games’.[1] Many young people run up big bills their parents have to pay. A few rich families might be able to afford this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend on their cell phones are an uncontrollable expense they cannot cope with. Others are under peer pressure to get the newest, most stylish phones with all the latest gadgets.Banning mobile phones would at least partially reduce the financial strain on poorer families.Now I will move on my third argument which is Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school.Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students’ attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce – students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, in 2005 60% of cases involving taking unauthorized items into exam rooms involved mobile phones, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.Now I will move on my fourth argument which is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, sexting, gambling and cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. In 2004, British mobile phone operators, in an effort to combat mobile abuse, enacted regulation that prevents children purchasing phones with unlimited internet access Though this demonstrates a problem has been identified, the solution does not address phones bought by parents for their children or children who already own phones with unlimited internet access. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.For these reasons we urge you to vote for CON.Sources:http://idebate.org...;\",\n \"Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]\",\n \"There are possible safety concerns When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children’s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.\",\n \"Using a Mobile Phone While Driving Should Be Banned Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...\",\n \"Cell phones even though cell phones are great they can also produce hearing problems and brain damage. because phones are becoming so great more people are getting them and peole are spending more time on them cell phones kill honeybees.....these days honey is used by hr8 patients & they would also someday die if this is continuously followed.\",\n \"Should students use phones in school Did u know wifi is actually a form of radiation? The wifi waves are electro-magnetic and a study published by Princeton university shows that they actually can be harmful to children. Yes children with disabilities can benefit from specific programs but why do they need their own personal devices to do so? Technology is very important in the modern day but schools need to find a way to balance between traditional schooling while keeping up with our rapidly changing world. BYOD isn't the way.\",\n \"Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives \\\"Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says\\\". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - \\\"In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving.\\\"\",\n \"Cell Phones Are Dangerous Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.\",\n \"Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets \\\"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload.\\\" LA Times. 30 June 2008 - \\\"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.\\\"\",\n \"cell phone being banned while driving \\\"I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. \\\" Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. \\\"Cell phones often cause accidents. \\\" No, they don't. \\\"Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. \\\" Prove it. Thank you.\",\n \"Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions \\\"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\\\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \\\"Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now.\\\"\",\n \"should kid own phones with service I will be arguing that children should not be allowed to possess phones with service. My opponent's first and only point regarded one's safety \\\"in cases of emergencies or someone got hurt or sick or if you got lost or need help and stuff like that.\\\" However, one does not need a phone with service to contact the police department, 911. As part of the \\\"Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,\\\" all phones, with or without service, must be capable of calling 911 (S1).Studies suggest that cellphones are unhealthy for youths. They pose many healthy concerns which may impact them greatly in the future. For example, in a study published by the NRPB in December 2004, scientists found that there were indications that radiation from cellphones may damage DNA. A study from April 2004 shows a correlation between mobile phone use and auditory nerve tumors, and research in 2003 links cellphones to impaired brain function (S2). Scientists have concluded that cellphones may double a child's risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain, damage cell membranes, radically decrease cellular production of energy and disrupt the communication between cells (S3). Cellphones are also a great deterrent of sleep. In a study of 10,000 16 to 19 year olds, researchers in Norway foudn that the longer a young person spent looking at an electronic screen before going to bed, the worse quality sleep they had. Those who spent more than four hours a day looking at screens had a 49% greater risk of taking longer than an hour to sleep and were 350% more likely to sleep for under five hours a night (S4). Being that sleep is crucial for youths, for physical and psychological development and for energy, many researchers discourage children from using cellphones.Sources:S1) https://www.fcc.gov...S2) https://www.newscientist.com...S3) http://articles.mercola.com...S4) http://www.independent.co.uk...\",\n \"This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. So we've reached the end of our debate. Clearly there are speculations and concerns issued by many incuding parents, teachers, peadriticians and scientists in regards to our motion. I however still am subscribing to the belief that that the advantages for children to own smart phones outweigh the minor disadvantages that come with it. To sum up, my three points that have been taken into account of our debate are to promote the intellectual development of children ,parallel to The Children's Right, economic and financial reasons and lastly to assimilate the element of latest technology among children to mould technology-savvy generation. Now for my opponent, I am well aware of the fragility of children's biology and how they can be obsessed with smart phones. That's why I did mention parents' role in this matter earlier. They should always control the internet and calls usage by their children. Parents should always remind their children of the danger of phones-oriented radiation to them and make sure that at night when they are sleeping their smart phones are placed at a safe distance. Besides that, if inability to stay focus in class becomes a problem, simple , parents should take away their phones and keep them during school hours return to them after school. In a nutshell, parents should allow their children to own a smart phone. Bear in mind that everything if used excessively can be dangerous and that applies to this situation. With enough control and support by parents, I believe that children can benefit the best from having this wonderful piece of technology! That's all from me, thank you for your time! I really appreciate it. Ps: to con, radiation doesn't \\\"'flow\\\"\\\"' in blood vein. It penetrates through your clothes and if powerful enough ( with strong penetrating power) through your skin.\",\n \"Phones Adding to the debate on phones being dangerous and causing people to be inattentive, my theory is that phones prove we are pushing further into the future. Although, the effects of being on a small screen do cause bad eyes etc., if there is a chance that these companies have the abilities to fix that problem, then it would push technology one step further onto the safer side. For example, I saw a stranger cross the road a week or so ago, and they was being shouted at due to the fact she was nearly hit by a car. That shows that being oblivious isn\\\"t something that can be fixed by Samsung or Iphone, but taking phones away will ruin businesses and would throw technology backwards. It is not the phones being detrimental, because if it wasn\\\"t bad for your eyes and brain, then it is just the idiocy and desperate need of phones. So it is us taking one fad to an extreme, which causes people to blame the phones for distracting them. I believe that if people had more self control, then they wouldn\\\"t be getting distracted by the irresistible buzz of phones. My conclusion is that people have made a fallacy out of phones, believing that phones are relied on to keep us sane. For example, when my Dad was a child, the only phones were either in red boxes, or attached to a wire. When he was in his early 30s, they were bricks, and now, he acts like they have a completely different purpose.\",\n \"Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel \\\"worried or uncomfortable\\\" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated \\\"they felt the need to switch off\\\" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.\",\n \"This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. 1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be \\\"notes\\\" or \\\"the interactive textbook\\\". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...\",\n \"Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned. Further, \\\"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.[1] [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story\",\n \"Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.\",\n \"Mobile Phones Used by Children Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...\",\n \"Ban cell phones for people under 16 A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that \\\"The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women.\\\" (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.\",\n \"the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.\",\n \"Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks.[1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads. It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible. Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer.[2] [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \\\"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\\\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414\",\n \"Society can't \\\"trust judgement\\\" of drivers with cell phones \\\"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\\\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \\\"Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction.\\\"\",\n \"Drivers don't get better with practice on cell phones \\\"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show.\\\" LA Times. 30 June 2008 - \\\"'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently.\\\"\",\n \"The use of a mobile phone requires a social life. Studies continue to emphatically expose the adverse effects of cell phone radiation; without refutation. [[http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cell-phone-damages-crotch.html]] Tell that to all those crack callers I keep getting missed calls from. Badgering strangers or not is possible on both the internet and on a mobile. The difference is privacy policies and Cyber-laws protect the average internet browser; whereas, there are no protections for those being harassed on their cellphone. And no I've tried the add to screen list option; the calls still come but the phone doesn't ring and calls I 'do' want to receive are impeded. all you need is a phone number; some creeps even dial in random numbers and then wait and see who picks up. Cell phones are even more versatile than public payphones for those who change Sims often; so they don't worry about call tracing. This is why cellphones are central to crime and terrorism. Demo: Get disposable phone; insert disposable Sim Call anyone from anywhere.(fellow criminals, stalker target, person to blackmail etc) Give phone to complete stranger or throw it in a trash bin; from which any random person can pick it up. Avoid being traced.\",\n \"Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90\",\n \"Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.\",\n \"the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it\",\n \"children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........\",\n \"Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.\",\n \"Are cellphones safe They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.\",\n \"Banning cell phones in cars Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.\",\n \"mobile phones are a curse for todays youth \\\"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.\\\" -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. \\\".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.\\\" --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.\",\n \"Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S. Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395\",\n \"children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........\",\n \"children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit \\\"radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation\\\" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that \\\"radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells\\\" and has not been found to \\\"cause cancer in animals\\\" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. \\\"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.\\\" Source: https://www.cancer.gov...\",\n \"Cell Phones Are Dangerous Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.\",\n \"Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.\",\n \"mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.\",\n \"Are cellphones safe the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved\",\n \"cell phone use good or bad state your debate Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. \\\"I derived this information from a reliable website.\\\" Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is \\\".org\\\" or \\\".gov\\\"! Anyone can just get a \\\".com\\\", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: \\\"A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it\\\"s not clear if they\\\"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain\\\"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.\\\" https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a \\\".org\\\" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma \\\" a specific type of brain tumor \\\" for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.\\\" https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a \\\".org\\\" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.\",\n \"Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.\",\n \"Cell Phones Are Dangerous \\\\\\\\\\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\\\\\\\\\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands\",\n \"the increase personal safety Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!\",\n \"Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Obviously it's not healthy, but the amount of radiation is so low, there really wont be any side effects.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"}}},{"rowIdx":36,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should marijuana be a medical option?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Medical Marijuana\nMy opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder. My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, \"happiness\" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution. What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. Per the New York Times: \"In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it \"shockingly easy\" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as \"primary caregivers\" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program.\" It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched. REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications. Sources (not including those previously used): http://www.pendulum.org... http://www.nytimes.com...","Marijuana Legalization\nThat's why it will be regulated and tax the hell out of and college kids can get it as easy as alcohol now anyways. You can go to and street next to a college campus and find pot. In my small town of 400 there are about 10 dealers. If you are trying to. say that its bad for you I agree with the cancer causing effect when it is smoked because anything inhales that's not oxygen is dangerous to the lung and can cause cancer because it is foreign to the body. but its health benefits outweigh the negatives. I use it for the constant pain i have in my knee and to help me sleep became i have insomnia. I'm glad you agree with me with medical marijuana but displeased you don't think it should be allowed for recreational usage.","Medical Marijuana should be a legal option\nI challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f","Marijuana should be legalized\nThank you for your timely opening round. In this round, I will refute my opponents arguments. Legalization of a substance My opponent states that legalizing something will result in higher usage; we agree on this point. Society will deem it more appropriate to follow the law, as is apparent. However, when Con states that Great Britain had a 15% increase in deaths from all drug once marijuana penalties were downgraded, we must look at the facts. The numbers used in this source are miniscule, nothing that can actually be substantial enough to show a link between marijuana and harder drugs (gateway effect). Deaths from Ecstasy increased from 33 in 2003 and 48 in 2004; cocaine increased from 113 to 147 in this time span; heroin 591 to 744. There are a multitude of variables that most likely change the number of deaths per year from these drugs. Citing the fact that they lessened marijuana penalties as reason why more are dead isn't logical. On top of this, these numbers are far too small to look into. Medicine My opponent states that he can point to another drug that accomplishes the same effects as marijuana with less harm. If we take a look at the statistics, which I will greatly expand on later, marijuana has caused zero deaths [1]. Over-the-counter-medicines and prescription medicines have killed thousands [2]. \"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, unintentional overdose deaths involving prescription opioids increased 114 percent from 2001 (3,994) to 2005 (8,541), the most recent nationwide data available...\" [2] I would love for my opponent to point to something that can alleviate anxiety, anorexia, pain, vomiting, and many others, while having MINIMUM side effects. I will happily go find statistic on how many have overdosed on that drug, because they most definitely exist. In accordance to my opponent's statement's about carcinogens in marijuana being more abundant then in tobacco, I can agree. Marijuana does indeed contain a high amount of carcinogens. However, marijuana also contains THC, which actually helps deter cancer. \"...marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which [Tashkin] said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.\" [3] He states that marijuana contains 20 times the risk of lung cancer, but again, there is not a single case of lung cancer from marijuana alone [1]. On top of this, the study actually doesn't include hard evidence that links marijuana to lung cancer, but has \"hypothetical\" and \"could\" used in it, words that are not definite. The lowering of the immune system is not validly represented by my opponent. According to my opponent's source, marijuana weakens the immune system in those who already have immune system deficiencies, which is solely due to the smoke. \"Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells.\" [4] Again, it states this in accordance to those with immune deficiencies. To administer this medicine to these patients with deficiencies in their immune systems, marijuana should be ingested. This eliminates the smoke factor and eliminates all chance of infection in these people, while leaving the medicinal calming effect. What my opponent advocates is more pills and more artificial drugs, which end up killing a fair amount of people yearly. For example, take Vioxx. It was created to alleviate pain for arthritis, yet also created more than double the chance of heart attacks and strokes in users [5]. Marijuana, however, would not increase either of these risks, yet will alleviate that pain. Individual harms It must be made clear that 30,000 people do not die every year in Britain smoking cannabis. This is a misrepresentation of evidence by my opponent. Every reader here can look over the source. It does not state that 30K a year die, but that 30K a year could die. Here is the exact quote: \"Cannabis may be responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year if the ill-effects of smoking the drug are comparable to those of smoking tobacco, researchers say.\" This is not the same as my opponent's statement. The article goes on to make hypothetical comparisons, all of which are unsubstantiated. Con's 64,000 deaths stat was not found on the link he provided, nor could I find it on some other anti-cannabis sites. Con then states that you can become mentally retarded by smoking weed and says your lungs will be annihilated. While the latter of these two has already been refuted (no lung cancer, no deaths, and actual prevention of cancer in the lungs), the former has not. Again, however, the evidence was construed from the original source. The source actually targets those under the age of 15 who have smoke cannabis. 10% of them developed schizophrenia by age 26. Obviously, just as with tobacco and alcohol, there would be age limits along with legalization. Nowhere did I advocate for no age limits. 15 is a young age where the brain is still developing. Still, the number is again a very small one (1 out of 10). Addictive- My opponent's source for this dates back to 1984, something I would consider a little too old to be using in a debate on current data and trends. Also, my sources point to the other direction. A chart was put together, comprised of a variety of drugs, in an attempt to rate them addiction wise, 1-6, 6 being highest/ very dependent. Categories were established to evaluate all facets of the drug. In dependence, marijuana got a 1, lower than coffee. It also got a one in withdrawal and tolerance [6]. This shows marijuana not to be addictive. Even if marijuana was addictive, it's irrelevant, for a user has the right to get addicted if they so wish. Why is tobacco legal? Nicotine achieved a 6 on the chart, yet it's sold in every gas station in America. \"Fail at education\" Again, marijuana won't be administered to kids, though the source yet again is taken out of context. 15% of car accidents in teens involve marijuana- \"...often in combination with alcohol or other drugs.\" [7] is the other part of that article. Even so, studies suggest that those who drive after smoking are capable [1]. Family Con states marijuana users are sick more often than not. His source doesn't state this. Marijuana users don't steal money. Property damage wasn't linked in the source, which was from 1999. For characters sake, I must not elaborate too much on the remainder of the points. I will state that if marijuana were to be legalized, legitimate traders would benefit more then illegitimate. Growing on your own would obviously be prohibited, and the quality of the marijuana shops would be supreme to the shady drug dealer who lives in the dark alley who has brick weed and coke he likes to mix in....Come on, which would you pick? Political lobbying and lawsuits comes with every company. That's not sufficient reason to not legalize something. |Conclusion| I've refuted Con's points. We can all see marijuana to be harmless, beneficial to the economy, and beneficial to the patient. Thank You. Sources 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 2. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... 5. Owen, David G., \"Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate,\" Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 737 6. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 7. http://www.drugabuse.gov...","Drug Legalization\nI thank con for their arguments, as now I would like to present by rebuttal to debunk his arguments on why drugs should not be legalized.A. War on drugsThe enourmous cost on America's War on Drugs is pretty bad. We are throwing too many prisnors in jail for non-violent drug crimes. Most prisnors are in jail due to drugs, and overdose deaths are at an all time high. Also, making drugs legal does not mean more people are going to use them. Many people are aware that some drugs (cocaine, meth, opiates, ect.) are bad and they won't use them even if they are legal. Illicit drugs are very easy to get thanks to dealers. Drug dealers are drug dealers due to the insane amoutn of money they get. Having something illegal does not simply cause it to decrease. If drug use has decreased over the years, it was due to education about drugs, not the legal status. Drug use in the US is higher than in any other country and USA criminalizes drugs more than any other country.War on drugs is simply not working, people are just thrown in jail and very few actually receive drug treatment. We should not be throwing non-violent drug users in jail. Mexico has decriminalized possession of drugs, you can legally possess small-medium quantities of drugs as a Mexican citizen. Yet, drug use still remains lower in Mexico.\"I would like to remind my opponent that he is advocating for drug legalization, not drug treatment over punishment.\"Legalization would mean treatment is easier and there's no punishment. sourceshttp://pastebin.com...B. HeroinWhile Jzonda's argument for heroin possibly going the same way as tobacco, there can be laws passed to prevent this. Laws can be passed to maintain the purity of heroin. Many heroin users are thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses and the criminalization of heroin may scare them from finding drug treatment. Only around 15% of heroin addicts actually receive treatment, so finding treatment may not be as easy as you think.\"Neither of Pro’s last two paragraphs in this section justify heroin being legalized. One talks about medical marijuana and ibogaine lowering addiction rates for heroin. This does not make a case for heroin being legalized.\"I apologize for that as I should have retitled them \"A better way to prevent heroin addiction.\" A junkie can easily live a normal life if they can easily get enough heroin easily to support their addiction. If a junkie can use heroin without harming anybody, why should they be criminalized? C. PsychedelicsOne of jzonda's first arguments was that psychedelics require higher doses for the same effects when tolerance builds up. This may be true, however psychedelics can still be used in moderation, just a higher hit every time. Drug tollerance only builds up with prolonged and constant usage of drugs. Some of my sources have supported the claim that psychedelics can positively impact someone's life. 2 examples are the study that magic mushrooms can expand your mind and Steve Jobs implying that dropping acid has enhanced his creativity. I don't know but expanding your mind and enhanced creativity sounds like a positive impact on life. I have also given some sources giving first hand accounts of people who claim psychedelics positively impacted them. Another point Con has mentioned is that some people use hallucinogens to escape reality. Computers and video games can also be used to escape reality and many people use them for a quick escape from reality. Should these drugs really be outlawed just because some people can't use them properly? Many people if not the majority of psychedelic users use it properly. Hallucinogens can be used to enhance reality aswell, not just to escape it. Many things (food, video games, computers, phones, television, partying ect.) can be abused. Con's point that usage may increase from legalization of psychedelics, I may actually agree on this. However, there is nothing wrong with increased usage because if used properly, psychedelics can be good for you. If people are well educated about harm reduction and properly using psychedelics, then I do not personally see the issue. One way to avoid abuse is if people must be properly educated about harm reduction before being able to legally buy hallucinogenic drugs. There are negative properties to psychedelic abuse but flashbacks are very rare. Remember that psychedelics also have many positive effects which can outweigh the flashbacks to some people. Sourceshttp://pastebin.com...D. Medical Marijuana Jzonda has mentioned alternative cancer treatments without hemp oil. However, a lot of these treatments if not all are very harmful or they do much more harm then hemp oil. The 2 main cancer treatments are chemotherapy and radiation therapy which both can be severly harmful. The cancer treatments you mentioned are not effective because they target everything, not just tumour cells. Hemp has an anti-tumoral effect in which it only targets cancerous cells leaving the healthy cells alone. Marijuana is not that harmful at all, it's safer than many legal drugs such as caffiene, alcohol or nicotine. The negative effects are commonly exaggerated by anti-drug people. CBD (cannabidol) rich strains of cannabis reduce the negative effects of THC (tetrahydracannabinol). CBD can also halt seizures and is approved as a safe and effective medicine for childhood epilepsy.Hemp can also be used for chronic pain management. Currently, opiates are used to kill pain. Opiate drugs have very high abuse potention and are far more dangerous than hemp, prescripion opiate painkillers are just weaker forms of heroin. Opiate abuse often leads to heroin addiction. Hemp is not only safer, but is also more effective at fighting chronic pain than opiates ever could. When pain becomes really serious, high doses of opiates can easily lead to abuse. You can also look up other medical properties of cannabis, it has a lot of medical uses. Abuse with marijuana does exist but caffiene abuse is a much bigger issue. Caffiene is more addictive and possibly more harmful than marijuana. Just because some people abuse marijuana does not mean everybody does. Most people use marijuana responsibly and it shouldn't be outlawed just because of a few irresponsible people. sourceshttp://pastebin.com...http://news.distractify.com...Con's CaseLegalization ProblemsI have debunked most of Con's cases about drug legalization causing increase in usage, crime and potency. Drug usage is highest in US when it is most criminalized in USA as opposed to other countires such as Mexico where possesion of drugs is legal.A lower cost of drugs from legalization can be a good thing because addicts have a better chance of living a normal life. An addict will go mad and insane if they don't have their fix and participate in violent crimes to get their next fix. However, an addict will not do that much crazy things if they have enough drugs. Cheaper drugs mean addicts can afford them without doing some crazy shiz. Synthetic DrugsNote that synthetic drugs just mean drugs that are produced in labs instead of found in nature. LSD and MDMA are both synthetic but many people can use them in moderation. There are some synthetic drugs that are bad, yes but we shouldn't just throw users of these drugs in jail like that. Legalization will not cause increase in use if people know it's bad for them, dealers make drugs as easy to get as something that's legal. Other DrugsYou have also mentioned that I did not give reasons for meth, cocaine or other drugs to be legalized which I will give now. Legalization of other hard drugs can be seen the same way as my reasons with heroin legalization. A legal and cheaper drug market will mean addicts are safer.additional sourceshttp://pastebin.com...","Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp\nI will begin this round by clarifying the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to restate it in his favor. The resolution clearly states that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) can (not should) legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The and/or part of the resolution is stated as such because the DEA has lumped both together under their prohibition of marijuana (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). The DEA does not recognize industrialized hemp, which uses a non-euphoric strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana (. http://naihc.org...), as a separately scheduled substance. The and/or is also presented because the two, medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, can be dealt with separately through the DEA and FDA. The PAC's that advocate legalization of industrialized hemp are concerned with the hemp industry, and the advocates of medical marijuana are concerned with it's use as a medicine. There are PAC's (political action committees) lobbying for both, but they are generally treated as separate issues with benefits for different individuals throughout society (patients vs. farmers). Therefore, my resolution stands as originally stated. To respond to my opponents first three contentions would be to deviate from my own resolution. My premise for this debate does not advocate the legalization of medical marijuana, rather my resolution is regarding the power the US Federal Government possesses to legalize either medical marijuana, industrialized hemp, or both. My opponent claims that it is the duty of the government to serve and protect it's citizens, and implies that it is the duty of the government to protect it's citizens from harming their own health. This is not a valid contention against the power of the Federal Government to legalize medical marijuana because the government has legalized harmful substances in the past (alcohol, cigarettes, the medical use of morphine, morphinol, and other opiates, the medical use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, etc. , etc. , etc. ). (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). Even cocaine and powdered opium are Schedule II drugs, which means they have an accepted medical use and can be prescribed by a doctor. My opponent claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. I contend that nearly any medicine has the potential for abuse, and I will define drug abuse as taking a psychoactive drug or performance enhancing drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Indeed alcohol has a much higher potential for abuse, it is a drug, and does not have nearly the accepted medical use as marijuana. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(I could not find a source for the medical use of alcohol)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Though I will not argue the issue of high potential for abuse, I will argue his contention that medical marijuana has an \"enormous lack of accepted safety for use of the drug\". Rescheduling requires that it be accepted for medical use, and I will list what a few medical agencies say about the issue: \"The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana . .. under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications. \" Reference: 1996-1997 AAFP Reference Manual - Selected Policies on Health Issues \"The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government . .. to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate IND program for medical marijuana, and . .. reschedul[ing] marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and . .. end[ing] the medical prohibition against marijuana. \" Reference: AMSA House of Delegates Resolution #12 : adopted March 1993 \"The American Nurses Association will: . .. Support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana/cannabis under appropriate prescriber supervision. Support the ability of health care providers to discuss and/or recommend the medicinal use of marijuana without the threat of intimidation or penalization. Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis. \" Reference: ANA Resolution: June 2003 American Preventive Medical Association \"Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government. \" Reference: \"Medicinal Use of Marijuana\" policy statement: December 8, 1997 Belgian Ministry of Health \"[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use. . .. This is an area where public health must prevail. \" Reference: Statement of the Health Ministry, as quoted in Expatica. com (Brussels), September 4, 2003. British Medical Association \"Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. . .. [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments. \" Reference: BMA report: \"Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis:\" November 1997 So not only is marijuana widely accepted in the medical community as medically beneficial, the side effects are far less harmful than those of other drugs, including many Schedule II drugs like cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal Laws that undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would legalize marijuana because Federal prohibition of marijuana falls under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (please see R1 for argument and sources). House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would express support for \"a very small number of individuals\" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity. If HR 5843 were passed, the House would support marijuana smokers possessing up to 100 grams -- about 3� ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also give its blessing to the \"nonprofit transfer\" of up to an ounce of marijuana. The resolution would not address laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not speak to state laws regarding marijuana use. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs. It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because the US Federal Government has the power- in various forms, ie. House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition- to \"eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana\" as stated in House Res. 5843, and legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal, I affirm that the US Federal Government CAN legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you.","Medical Marijuana\nMarijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.","Medical Marijuana\nMedical Marijuana is the future of medicine. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance meaning it has the greatest potential for abuse with no medical value, according to the FDA. While the FDA doesn\"t consider marijuana a medicine, 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use to help diagnose over 25 different conditions. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 24 out of the 50 states in the US and the number is currently growing. For example, in Colorado, a state where Medical Marijuana is legalized, 1 in every 30 people are Medical Marijuana patients meaning they have a Medical Marijuana card allowing them to purchase their medicine from dispensaries. These are just a few numbers to prove the increase of Medical Marijuana use in America. Almost thirty percent of people suffer from pain or pain related symptoms every day. Physicians that can prescribe medical marijuana have found that they have prescribed about 1,826 fewer doses of drugs, such as opioids. As this topic grows and affects American culture, we have to decide what the right choice will be to help cure our loved ones. Medical Marijuana is also a short-term cure for cancer and is used for patients with autism. The family\"s that have to go through these problems would do and try anything to help the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Doctor\"s and families rely on Medical Marijuana to help alleviate pain, so why does the FDA want to stop the sales and distribution of Medical Marijuana?","Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized\nValor has fallen victim to \"Reefer Madness!\" :) Marinol is not as effective as marijuana. Steve Kubby has survived for over twenty-five years a form of cancer expected to cause his death as a young man. He credits medical marijuana for prolonging his life. In 2006, despite the legalization of medical marijuana in California, Kubby and his wife were arrested on unconstitutional anti-drug laws that violated the sovereignty of California. Here is how Marinol worked out for him: \"With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into the spinal cord, brain and organs.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... You cite the FDA as if it is some kind of authority. The FDA is a political bureaucracy that, like all bureaucracies, exists in order to expand its scope, budget, and power. There are thousands of medical doctors who support the use of medical marijuana, and several states have enacted laws to legalize it. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong -- why do you think there has to be one solution for everyone? Do you want to put dying AIDS and cancer patients in jail for using the medicine that they think works best for them? For using a medicine that might be more affordable, particularly if homegrown? You are shilling for the corporate drug companies in the medical-industrial complex (what a surprise, the AMA is against legalization!), and you are arguing for continued human suffering, death, and financial poverty brought on by high drug prices. As for the government studies you cite: I could cite non-government counter-studies -- anyone can just Google it. There is difference of opinion and impure motives on both sides. Why does there have to be just one solution? If medical marijuana were legal, then individuals and doctors could choose whether to use or prescribe it. If a doctor thought it was not effective, he could prescribe something else. You then demonstrate there are negative side effects to marijuana usage -- this just makes it like every other drug on the planet. Of course, there are negative side effects! Watch TV and you'll see plenty of ads for government-approved drugs that can cause everything from increased blood pressure to an urge to gamble! The negative side effects, as well as the health risks for personal/recreational use make a great argument for not using it -- but no argument for making it illegal. I don't smoke marijuana because of the negative health effects. I don't smoke cigarettes either. But I do eat Big Macs and drink beer, both of which are unhealthy. Should they be banned too? Obesity and alcoholism are much greater problems in America than marijuana \"addiction.\" By the way: Marijuana is not physically addictive. It is only mentally addictive. There are people who are officially categorized as sex addicts. The consequences of sex can be far more harmful than marijuana (unwanted pregnancy and AIDS come to mind). So should sex be banned, or at least regulated? Even though sex can be \"addictive\" and harmful, the vast majority of people make responsible choices with sex. Just as the vast majority of Americans currently make responsible choices with marijuana. Marijuana is addictive like MySpace or Nintendo (or Debate.org), not like alcohol or cocaine. Marijuana a gateway drug? Sure. The type of people who are prone to use heroin are going to use marijuana first because it is more widely available. But they probably drink alcohol before that. And they probably drink soda before that. If the fact that heroin users first use marijuana can be blamed on marijuana, then obviously, marijuana usage should be blamed on soda, and by your logic, soda should be made illegal, too. In fact, breast milk could be cited as the \"gateway\" to all drugs and crimes and other horrors in the world. You truly are a victim of government propaganda and Reefer Madness. Look, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent is saying that marijuana makes people violent -- even the government hasn't made such outlandish claims since the 1930s. We all know people who use marijuana and aren't violent. In fact, we probably know people who are specifically not violent because they use marijuana! You are against health freedom. You are for bureaucrats and central governments dictating the healthcare choices of sick people, and I find that morally offensive. There are thousands of people who use medical marijuana in the U.S., and the reasons they do so are none of your business. Recreational use is none of your business, either. As cited in the previous round, alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition, but it did not go up appreciably following the end of Prohibition. There's no reason to believe marijuana would be any different (although use certainly is higher now than when it was legal -- Prohibition creates higher prices, which in term create profits for drug dealers, which create an incentive to market the product, etc. -- FACT). You mostly ignored my arguments and focused in on marinol, and the government studies that suggest it is an effective alternative. I will ask you once again to answer the following questions: 1. Do you admit that marijuana has medicinal benefit beyond its application as a pain killer (stimulating appetite being one such benefit)? 2. Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? 3. Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? 4. Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? 5. Do you think that the Drug War has been worth the fiscal and social costs, especially given the fact that people still want and use drugs? NEW QUESTION #6: Should alcohol and cigarettes be banned, and if not, why not? Please answer my questions in Round 3. If you do not answer the questions, I can only assume that you concede the points, and that's a lot of points to concede.","Medical Marijuana\nNevertheless, there are aspects I would like to note: 1: Con has failed to address any of my supports up to the conclusion thus conceding to each and every single point of mine. 2: Con has repeatedly ignored the point made that it is up to users to decide on what to do with marijuana. He has only reiterated his point on how harmful marijuana CAN be, never addressing the user's decision nor defending any rebuttals by Pro (me). 3. Recall the phrase issued by Con \"damages brain, repertory. .. \" This is completely absurd. Repertory refers to a theatrical presentation which is completely deviating from this debate.","Medical Marijuana\nWe agree on all definitions so let's now move onto the case. C1: Medical Marijuana has been medically proven to have numerous benefits. If need be, I could potentially use all my space going on about the medical benefits of marijuana and how marijuana can benefit us however I'll provide three different benefits today. Sub-Point A: Alzheimer's Disease (Thanks Danielle! ) Lisa M. Eubanks, PhD, Staff Scientist at the Scripps Research Institute and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology notes, \"THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease [by] simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer's disease\" [1] Since the characterization of the Cannabis sativa produced cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinol in the 1960s, this natural product has been widely explored as an antiemetic, anticonvulsive, anti-inflammatory, and analdebilitating disease are critical as Alzheimer's disease afflicts over 20 million people worldwide, with the number of diagnosed cases continuing to rise at an exponential rate [2]. These studies have demonstrated the ability of cannabinoids to provide neuroprotection against amyloid peptide toxicity. [3] Thus we see that medical marijuana provides plausible assistance with a prevalent disease, Alzheimer's Disease. Sub-Point B- HIV/AIDS Numerous studies have shown that medical marijuana has benefited AIDS. While I urge the readers to do some research on their own, I'll summarize some of the results of experimentation. “The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy. There are no drugs specifically approved to treat that kind of pain. Three times daily for nearly a week, the patients smoked marijuana cigarettes machine-rolled at the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the only legal source for the drug recognized by the federal government. Half the patients received marijuana, while the other 25 received placebo cigarettes that lacked the drug's active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Scientists said the study was the first one published that used a comparison group, which is generally considered the gold standard for scientific research. Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale. ” [4] Investigators at Columbia University published clinical trial data in 2007 showing that HIV/AIDS patients who inhaled cannabis four times daily experienced substantial increases in food intake with little evidence of discomfort and no impairment of cognitive performance. They concluded that smoked marijuana has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive patients. [5] In another study in 2008, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine found that marijuana significantly reduces HIV-related neuropathic pain when added to a patient's already-prescribed pain management regimen and may be an \"effective option for pain relief\" in those whose pain is not controlled with current medications. Mood disturbance, physical disability, and quality of life all improved significantly during study treatment. [6]Medical Marijuana also has numerous ways to help treat HIV/AIDS, yet another epidemic in today's society. Sub-Point C: Cancer According to a 2007 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body. [7] A study by Complutense University of Madrid found the chemicals in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy. The research team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and in people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor shrank. Usingelectron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. [8] Cannabis has been found to help cancer patients with pain and nausea, and recent research indicates it has tumor-reducing and anti-carcinogenic properties properties as well. It has proven highly effective at controlling the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and its appetite-stimulation properties help combat wasting. Cannabis can also help control the pain associated with some cancers, as well as that resulting from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. [9]Finally, we can come to the conclusion that Medical Marijuana can help cure cancer. When we look back, I have provided three benefits for three prevalent diseases: Alzheimer's Disease, HIV/AIDS, as well as cancer. I could go on and on discussing mental disorder benefits as well as Glaucoma, but I don't want to bore the readers and I urge them to do some of their own research. C2: The government should not decide whether medical marijuana should be illegal or not, let the competent doctors decide. This whole issue comes down to simply whether or not medical marijuana should be prescribed by doctors. The federal government should not have its say in determining whether or not the doctors can prescribe the marijuana or not. We should allow the experienced doctors to determine whether or not a patient should receive marijuana, not the federal government. Thus, when we look onto the doctor's opinions we see doctors believe it should be prescribed. According to the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog: The American College of Physicians, 124,000 members strong, has issued a 13-page position paper asking the federal government to drop marijuana from its classification as a substance considered to have no medicinal value and a high chance of abuse . . . \"They've said essentially that the federal government has it all wrong,\" Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, [says]. [10] Along with this association, numerous doctors and individuals believe that medical marijuana should be prescribed. At the point at which the competent individuals and the ones who spend their whole entire lives working in the field of medicine believe it should be prescribed, why would the federal government have any say? I can provide more sources and more examples but I think when you look at what I have provided throughout all the sources (most from doctors) you can come to the conclusion that doctors believe it is a necessity and obligatory to legalize medical marijuana. Conclusion: Medical marijuana has been empirically proven to benefit diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. Many doctors want to legalize marijuana and the experienced doctors should decide whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, not a governing body. Let the decision rest upon the individuals who spend their lives working in the field of medicine, not those who do not have enough knowledge on the topic. By letting this occur, we see many doctors are in favor of legalizing medical marijuana and it would have enormous positive impacts on today's society and well-being. For these reasons, I urge a PRO vote. See . http://www.debate.org... sources.","Marijuana Legalization\nIntroduction:Though many have deviated from past standards opposing marijuana legalization, I still stand firm in my belief that marijuana should not be legalized. As I will show in the continuation of this round, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons as to why this illegal drug should not be legalized.C1) Marijuana is a harmful drug.No matter what camouflage or disguise is plastered onto it, the substance remains the same: a drug. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. Essentially, all drugs have harmful effects. This holds true in regards to marijuana. The University of Washington documents its respiratory effects. “A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze – similar to that of tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011).” [1]But the problem doesn’t stop there. The same article explains, “Additionally, many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which further increases the harm. Numerous studies have found that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive, with more respiratory problems in those who smoke both substances than in those who only smoke one or the other (Wu et al, 1988).” [1] Because the use of marijuana is directly linked to cigarette usage, these statistics are relevant as well.Beyond that, other health problems come from marijuana, including cancer. This is once again detailed by the University of Washington. “Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene [than cigarettes], both known carcinogens (Tashkin, 2013). Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).” Cancer is also a problem when considering the legalization of marijuana. With so many individuals already affected by cancer, increasing its prevalence is an obvious detriment.Statistically, the potency of the drug is increasing as well. Live Science supports this notion by quoting, “According to research from the Potency Monitoring Project, the average THC content of marijuana has soared from less than 1 percent in 1972, to 3 to 4 percent in the 1990s, to nearly 13 percent today.” [2] THC is the intoxicating chemical in marijuana. The increase in this is causing a more powerful and harmful substance.C2) Marijuana legalization would result in an increase of marijuana use.Legalizing a substance, even for strictly medical purposes, is bound to increase use. In fact, the Office of National Drug Control Policy supports this notion. “A recent report from the RAND Corporation, “Altered State,” discusses how legalization would cause the price of marijuana to plummet, triggering increases in use of the drug.” [3] Essentially, the illegal nature of marijuana keeps the prices high. Lower prices would inevitably allow, and even encourage, more people to use the drug. More use encourages more abuse, thereby causing more people to be affected by the aforementioned concerns and health complications.Although alcohol use is vastly more than marijuana use, legalization would close the gap. Moreover, previous experience with attempts to legalize other drugs (such as Oxycontin) have proven faulty and unsuccessful. Even if controlling methods were implemented, they weren’t effective in regulating even legal use.C3) Legalization of marijuana reverses moral values.Although many claim that marijuana is beneficial in medical fields, there is not strong support for this notion. In fact, the Buffalo News points this out. “There is not an adequate base of research that shows marijuana is effective for treating any serious medical condition. Therefore, no major group of medical experts supports the use of smoked marijuana for treatment of health problems.” [4] This shows medical marijuana ineffective. If this is true, marijuana is left to only harm individuals. Thus, legalizing marijuana would promote the harm of individuals rather than the assistance.If marijuana is legalized to increase revenue, and fabricate a better economy, it serves to value economics above humanity. Morality, however, values humanity inexplicably and irrefutably above the economy. Rhetorically, if humanity is being devalued solely to value economy, what is the need for an economy if humanity is being harmed? In reality, there isn’t a need for economy in this scenario.Since legalization of this drug does devalue humanity, any economic benefits are equally countered by the subsequent devalue of humanity.C4) Previous legalizations have had adverse effects.Perhaps the most popular legalization to date, in the US, is Colorado. While many share success stories of the legalization, we find that more relevant are the detrimental effects that are widespread and prevailing. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report titled “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: the Impact” that detailed few important consequences of the legislation. Among others, key findings included: “The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally.” [5] These drastic and dire statistics show that the supposed “benefits” of legalizing marijuana fall without merit, when compared to the detriments and harms.Furthermore, the governor of Colorado regrets the decision to legalize marijuana. The Daily Mail documents this phenomenon, “Speaking on CBNC, the 62-year-old Democrat said: 'If I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would've reversed the election and said, \"This was a bad idea\".'” [6] As the governor realizes the fault with legalizing marijuana, and we understand the consequences that have arisen from the legalization, we must negate the resolution and oppose legalizing marijuana.Rebuttals:My opponent first speaks of Colorado, but I have already effectively shown, with evidence (something my opponent lacked) that this claim does not hold water. He next brings up the fact that people should have the freedom to smoke. However, when economy is valued before humanity, and the preservation of citizens (which is a governments foremost duty), we find that morality is twisted. Instead, humanity should be valued before economy.His next argument assumes that we should trust his claims rather than credible sources. He has not shown evidence to back up his claims, thus, they fall without merit. Furthermore, even if not as severe, marijuana does have “buzz” and is detrimental (as shown in C1).He claims that marijuana has medical benefits, but as I showed in C3, this is not scientifically sound. The support for this notion is weak. Besides, I have also brought up multiple arguments detailing and proving that marijuana is a health hazard.Conclusion:Conclusively, we find that legalizing marijuana would be an inferior option to the popular status quo. Thus, from a moral and pragmatic standpoint, we are fully obligated to negate the resolution, and keep marijuana illegal in the US.Sources: [1] http://adai.uw.edu...[2] http://www.livescience.com...[3] http://www.iowa.gov...[4] http://www.buffalonews.com...[5] http://www.rmhidta.org...[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...","In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use\nAt a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate. Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’. In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’. The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself. Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. . Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.","Medical Marijuana\nNow let's move on to my final rebuttal and conclusion. R1: Terrible Health DefectsThis seems to be what my opponent's case essentially revolves around. It should be noted that while marijuana does have side effects and a potential for harm, almost every drug does as well. The only sources that my opponent has nonchalantly thrown out that are actually against marijuana don't even discuss medical use. The credible sources that he provides actually advocate for medical marijuana which my opponent does not even realize. My opponent fails to establish why morphine or novocaine should be legal in that case as well. As I stated earlier, numerous medical programs recognize marijuana as relatively safe for medical use. Let's go in depth and see what they say. According to an approved statement from the US Department of Justice in 1988, \"Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. \" [1] From January 1997 to June 2005, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported zero deaths caused by the primary use of marijuana. Through that time period, 279 deaths were reported where marijuana was a possible \"concomitant\" drug used in conjunction with other drugs at the time of death. In contrast, common FDA-approved drugs which are often prescribed in lieu of marijuana (such as anti-emetics and anti-psychotics), were the primary cause of 10,008 deaths. [2]R2: FDA Statement? ?So yes apparently the FDA did issue a blanket statement disregarding all medicinal values of medical marijuana. This does not by any means mean it should be illegal. In fact many medical institutions have been negatively stigmatizing the FDA for making such lavish claims. To help prove the ridiculousness of this claim, I refer to Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente. The FDA's pronouncement tells us little about medical marijuana, but it says much about how politics appears to be trumping science at the agency we all depend on to protect our health. .. .The federal government has not only refused to fund medical marijuana research, it has put in place a set of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that have kept the flow of even privately funded medical marijuana studies to a trickle. So with one hand, our government tells us 'there's no data,' while with the other hand it works to ensure there will never be enough data. So why did the FDA issue this questionable document, containing no new information whatever, at this particular moment? The only apparent explanation is politics. .. . Science, it appears, took a back seat. For the FDA to do its job as protector of our nation's health, it must be free from commercial or political pressure. When politics trumps science at the FDA, we are all in danger. \" [3] Let's now have a look at to what NY Times had to say about this: \"The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice. Ordinarily, when the F. D. A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that 'no sound scientific studies' supported the medical use of marijuana. .\" [4] Thus it is not at all a valid scientifical standpoint but rather a whimsical attempt by politicians to attack the marijuana user party. R3: Schizophrenia and Testicular CancerThere is really no solidification of this contention as he agrees so this has successfully been shot down because marijuana never causes Schizophrenia. Con then goes on to helplessly try to justify this by bringing up some \"Pro marijuana legilizaation dude\" (nobody knows what legilizaation is) and states how he believes it is true. This is bad conduct because there is no explanation, no source, and no credibility. I think it is clear to the readers and will move on. As far as the testicular cancer issue goes, I have significantly shot this down yet again and Con just spews out another source but I have proven that this is just another confusion of correlation and causation so we shall move on now. R4: Withdrawal and AggressionHe states that there is a possibility for one to be aggressive but there is no evidence that this has caused aggression but there is some relation. It is generally considered that marijuana has soothed and calmed people, not made them aggressive. \"When the system is hyper-aroused, as in today’s lifestyle, marijuana calms. The significance of this fact cannot be ignored. It explains the increased creativity reported as a part of the marijuana experience, because when both sides of brain processes are heightened, both types of brain activity are greater. The left brain notices more, while the right brain receives more. This is the unification of logic and intuition. The term “expansion of consciousness” is explained physiologically as a “shifting of brain emphasis from one-sidedness to balance” (Sugarmena and Tarter, 1978), which fits precisely with the feeling called “high. \" [5] Here's another statement: \"At low doses, most marijuana users report a sense of calm, well-being and relaxation—the exact opposite of anxiety. Recent scientific investigation reveals that in addition to a sense of calm, low doses of marijuana produce a loss of temporal awareness (time), slight mental confusion, a slowing of the thought processes, impairment of short-term memory and sometimes an awareness of attaining special insights or knowledge. \" [6] We can not come to the conclusion that it will increase aggression but perhaps if you smoke extensively it will. Even so, many other drugs cause far more aggression and they should be illegal as well. R5: AIDS/HIVThis rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. I urge readers to refer back to my last rebuttal. He states there is a possibility of T-cells to fight off infections but there is simply no definite cause while I have provided that there is a definite benefit on HIV/AIDSR6: Alzheimer'sThis ongoing project is only working towards achieving tangible results but has not even came close. With his evidence we can not come to any conclusions but only a rather possibility of there being side-effects, no definite harm here and can be completely disregarded. NO WARRANT! R7: Addiction and AlternativesI am begginning to run out of space but first off addiction can simply be solved with less prescription and I have already proven that it is not addictive and it is never considered addictive anymore. It is a myth that has been disproven time after time. Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links. .this is not debate but a link competition. Conclusion: Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal (arguments), uses unreliable sources such as his Dad (sources), and spells things terribly such as 'rubuttal' and 'legilizaation' (spelling). With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources. To end this I refer to Carl Sagan's video and vote PRO. . http://www.youtube.com...","Marijuana should be legalized\nMarijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.","Legalization of Marijuana\nLegalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard. Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't. Unless the CDC and the FDA publishes proof that Marijuana can cure Medical issues, this country will remain split on the issue of legalizing it. Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana. Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana? Think about the questions before responding","Marijuana should be legal\nMarijuana is used almost like alcohol, but has been used in a more abusive way. Marijuana was used as a medicine until we abused it and perverted it into a gateway drug. just because liquor is legal doesn't mean we should use and abuse it extensively, like we have with Marijuana. and that's why Marijuana should remain illegal. Furthermore i would like to thank lightningbolt50 for the debate opportunity, and you for reading. vote for whoever you think did the best. Thank you","Medical Marijuana should be a legal option\n1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, \"There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases,\" Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, \"That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,\". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, \"Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke,\" This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.","Marijuana should not be legalized.\nThank you, Con.REBUTTALS:\"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns.\"This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below. You can see the difference between the two.My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you \"high\" and the other does it in a \"drunk\" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get \"high.\" In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely.\"Marijuana is NOT addictive.\"This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad.\"Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke.\"I'm pretty sure it is.\"It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness.\" Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.ARGUMENTS:Marijuana can affect your mental health immenselyAccording to the American Medical Association: \"Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders.\" It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:-Random thinking-A distorted sense of time-Paranoia-Anxiety-Forgetfulness-DEPRESSIONMany Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]Marijuana can affect your physical health immenselyMarijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:-Dizziness-Shallow breathing-Red eyes-Drymouth-Increased appetite (munchies)-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.Marijuana can affect your fetus babyA study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.ConclusionI believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.Your turn, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]- http://www.webmd.com...[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...","THW Require the Provision of Cannabis in Any State Funded Medical Program\nFor governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological","Drugs are bad\nWe believe that in order to win the debate any side should prove that drugs are harmful / not harmful and that the state could / could not restrict individual liberties. So our burden of proof is to prove that drugs are bad (otherwise, there would be no reason for banning them) and that the state is a legitimate actor to ban them (i.e. restrict personal freedom of choice). We will do this by two arguments and here comes the first one proving that drugs are bad in general. On the side of opposition we believe that drugs are inherently evil. They have tremendous negative consequences for the health of a person using them and for society, since a person could commit crazy actions under the influence of drugs. Moreover, part of taxes paid by residents of a country are spent on treating drug users from their addiction, which results in a loss for the welfare of the state. The argument is structured in a manner to point out harmful health effects from the usage of different drugs, and explain how work the mechanisms causing lose for society overall. 1. Negative effects on health. a. Heroin Among all drugs, heroin sometimes is encountered as the most evil. Scientific research shows that people using heroin suffer from serious health problems and have a higher mortality rate than others of the same age who do not use drugs. The increased number of injections plays as a catalyst in developing some infections like endocarditis, cellulitis and abscesses. It has a clear positive correlation with the usage of heroin, since this drug is usually consumed by injections [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. Also heroin causes serious mental disorders like anxiety and personality disorders. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] Drug addicts also have a higher rate of suicides, which is proven by some recent studies [[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/3/277]]. Some research suggests that heroin addicts are 14 times more likely to commit a suicide than their peers who do not use this drug [[http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/DI_ResearchProject/$file/Methadone+Project+sheet.pdf]]. The most popular way of committing the suicide is by deliberate drug overdose. We could propose a mechanism to describe this phenomena. A person, whose mental and physical health were undermined by heroin, who is completely desegregated from society and has no sufficient stimulus for living, under the influence of depression caused by the end of heroin \"high\" decides to commit a suicide. There are numerous examples of such people. There is also a high rate of non deliberate deaths from overdose among heroin users. Tolerance towards this drug develops very fast, which requires an addict to use the substance more frequently and at higher doses. About 10-20% of users develop such a significant dependence and tolerance that they have to use heroin every 3-4 hours [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. This makes overdose very likely to occur. Moreover, overdose could occur because of inability of the user to calculate the optimum dose for him while he is \"high\". We have shown at least some serious problems connected to heroin. We believe that there are much more, but we need to move on to our next points. b. Cocaine, crack cocaine. Cocaine also causes several harmful effects. It damages brain by taking control over the cells in the \"pleasure center\" of brain and thus causing high biological addiction towards the drug. It significantly increases blood pressure, heart rate. Could cause strokes, brain seizures, respiratory failure, heart attack, convulsions and death. It also diminishes the desire for sleep and food, thus leading to malnutrition, significant weight loss and the devastation of the user. It also has negative effects on liver, reproductive system, lungs, throat and basically every single organ of the user. Moreover, it causes several mental disorders like increased irritability and anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, depression, non-stop babbling, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, short tempers, bizarre, aggressiveness, violence, suicidal behavior, delusions, paranoia and hallucinations. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/news.php?include=133996]] We believe that all these symptoms are enough to regard cocaine as totally unacceptable. c. Marijuana. There are some people stating that marijuana in general is not harmful. May be it is the least harmful among all the drugs, but there is still evidence in favor of its harmfulness. The immediate effect from the usage of marijuana involves increased heartbeat, which leads to heart problems in the future. Intensive usage of marijuana makes a person dull, slow moving and inattentive. It harms memory, reduces concentration, swift reaction, coordination and alters the sense of time. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/marijuana-addiction.html]] Some studies showed that smoking marijuana is especially harmful for pregnant or breast feeding women, since it could affect their fetus. [[http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/cannabis-pregnancy-and-breast-feeding]] But the most crucial argument against even such \"light\" drug as marijuana is that the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs. It is hard to find a heroin addict who has never smoked weed in his life. Since under the plan all drugs will be legalized there will be no deterring effect to prevent people who started to use less harmful drugs from moving to more harmful ones. Under the status quo less harmful drugs such as marijuana are more available than those like heroin. It is much harder to buy heroin from drug dealer, because it involves more restrictions. This prevents people who tried marijuana from trying other, more harmful, drugs. If we legalize all drugs, this prevention will disappear. By the way the arguments of the government about no harm of marijuana fails here once again, since the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs, which under the plan will be legal. 2. Harms to society. a. Crazy behavior of drug addicts. There were many crimes committed under the influence of drugs, since the usage of drugs puts a person into \"another reality\", it makes it impossible for him to behave adequately in the real world. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states several facts supporting the positive correlation between the usage of drugs and committing crimes. In the US the drug test of arrested showed that from 43% in Anchorage to 79% in Philadelphia of male arrestees showed a positive result on the test of the usage of any drugs. [[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html]] After the plan is implemented and drugs become legal, the significant increase in the crime rates could follow. There are already some states putting restrictions on the sale of alcohol (like Sweden or Latvia), because they find it easier to restrict such substances rather than deal with the evil consequences. The only reason we can't put restrictions on all alcohol is because of traditions. Traditionally people got used to alcohol and tobacco so much that the ban of these substances will cause a huge response in public. Fortunately, there is no such traditional dependence on drugs, that's why it is great that we can ban them. There was an argument from the proposition that such laws allowing alcohol and restricting drugs are \"unfair\". We believe that there is no such thing as \"fair\" or \"unfair\" relating to drugs and alcohol, and we believe that we should try our best to protect our citizens. If we can't ban alcohol because of traditions, it doesn't mean that we should allow also drugs. We believe that we should protect people from as many harmful things as we can. b. Economic loss. The social costs of drug use are estimated at 0.2% of Gross National Product in the US. The costs to society of a person with opioid dependency are 45,000$ per year. This includes costs of him not working, but living on social benefits; costs of crimes he commits; and costs of medical treatment he needs when he is under the overdose. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] It is clear that economically it is much more beneficial to ban drugs and avoid this loss.","Legalising weed\nThanks for letting me fulfill my position.Here is my stance in this debate.\"1) It's extremely addictive for some people: If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to Dr. Drew Pinsky who has been working with addicts for decades. It would be malpractice to say that cannabis isn't addictive. Anybody who's experienced it, actually been addicted to it, knows how profound that addiction is.... The difficult thing about marijuana addiction is some people, even though they're addicted can do fine with it for many many years before they start to have difficultly, but eventually the high starts wearing off, people start smoking a lot more to try to get that high back and that's when they descend into difficulties. ...I've been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis. It is extremely addictive...for some people. I think that's where people get confused. It's not very addictive for many people. It's a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction. But for them it is really tough. You only need talk to them, they'll tell you how tough it is. Additionally, that \"small subset\" Dr. Drew is talking about isn't so small in a big country like America. \"Of the 7.3 million persons aged 12 or older classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in 2012, 4.3 million persons had marijuana dependence or abuse.\" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more legal and available marijuana becomes, the higher those numbers are going to go. 2) This experiment hasn't worked out so well for Amsterdam: Humans being what they are, just about any stupid idea we can come up with has already been tried somewhere else. Amsterdam is the most famous place across the world that has effectively legalized pot. It has even turned into a tourist destination for potheads. Legalizing weed has been a huge success there, right? Actually, not so much... Its citizens are now alarmed that their children are increasingly being exposed to it. Amsterdam today became the first city in the Netherlands to ban students from smoking marijuana at school. The city's mayor Eberhard van der Laan introduced the law after school chiefs complained about pupils turning up to classes high after rolling up outside the grounds. Marijuana is widely available in Holland as, although it is technically illegal, police can't prosecute people for possession of small amounts. But it has also had the unwanted side effect that Dutch children are frequently exposed to the drug in public areas. Additionally, contrary to the claims that legalizing it will reduce crime, in Amsterdam it’s been found that crime is now centering around the coffeehouses where marijuana is sold. …Certainly the outlook for coffee shops is bleak. Among the few policies that the three parties in the new coalition government agree on is the need to reduce their numbers. The governing agreement released last week laid out plans that will force them to become members-only clubs and shut down those shops located near schools. The coalition is also advancing the idea of prohibiting the sale of cannabis to non-Dutch residents, which amounts to a death knell for many coffee shops. ...The circumstances that led to the tolerance policies have changed in the past decade, as large-scale crime around coffee shops and the legal sex trade became more visible. In particular, the absence of legal means for coffee shops to obtain cannabis has highlighted their association with organized crime. But the open-minded instincts that helped foster the policies are also being questioned. And it is not just the far-right opposing coffee shops. The traditional parties of power on the center-right, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal VVD, have also moved against the policies they once promoted. That doesn't exactly sound like a success story, does it? 3) Marijuana is terrible for your mental health: Marijuana may even be WORSE than cigarettes. At least cigarettes don't peel points off of your IQ. A recent Northwestern University study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become. In its own report arguing against marijuana legalization, the American Medical Association said: \"Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders.\" So, there's a good reason most habitual marijuana users come off as stupid. The drug is making them stupider, even when they're not high. You really want your kids on that? 4) Marijuana is terrible for your physical health: How bad is marijuana for you? It's even more toxic than cigarette smoke. Regular users are hit with devastating lung problems as much as 20 years earlier than smokers. Even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility and it has a terrible impact on the babies of women who smoke including \"birth defects, mental abnormalities and increased risk of leukemia in children.\" If your standard is, \"Well, it's better for you than Meth or Crack,\" that's true, but you're deluding yourself if you think pot is anything other than absolutely horrible for your health. 5) The drug decimates many people's lives: Movies portray potheads as harmless, fun-loving people who spend their time giggling and munching Cheetos, but they don't show these people when they're flunking out of school, losing their jobs, frustrated because they can't concentrate or losing the love of their lives because they just don't want to be with a pot smoking loser anymore. Even in the limited number of studies that are out there, the numbers are stark. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. ...Students who use marijuana have lower grades and are less likely to get into college than nonsmokers. They simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize information compared to those who do not use these substances. It's bad enough that we already lose so many Americans to cigarettes, alcoholism, and drunken driving. Do we really want to endorse the loss of millions more potentially productive Americans via Marijuana? Do we move on from there to Crack, Heroin or Meth? Some people would say, “If they want to do it, great, then it's no business of ours.” But, you can also bet that those same people will be complaining about all the junkies and welfare cases that will be created by the policy they endorsed. So, ask yourself a few key questions. Is legalizing Marijuana going to make this a better country or a worse one? Would you want to live in a neighborhood filled with people who regularly smoke marijuana? Would you want your kids regularly smoking pot? Now is the time to think about it because although it's easy to thoughtlessly legalize a drug like marijuana, when things go predictably wrong down the road, it will be a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than people seem to think.\" [1]Sources:[1] https://calmusa.org...;[2] http://www.celebstoner.com...;(Just to cite a couple of the many examples that this article cited).","Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states\nThe matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as \"a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant\" and \"a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared.\" Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as \"a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive.\" [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that \"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.\"[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual\"s right to care for him or herself\"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...","Medical Marijuana\nMedical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.","Marijuana should become legalised\nSorry for the wait, and here are my arguments. A) Marijuana affects one of your most important organs—the brain. Studies have shown that this drug affects the blood flow to the brain, which may explain why cannabis users have trouble with memory or thinking [1] [2]. Researches studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers. \"The marijuana users volunteered to participate in an inpatient program and abstained from marijuana use for a month.\" \"Blood flow in the brain was analyzed at the beginning of the study and at the end of the month for the marijuana users. Researchers found blood flow was significantly higher in marijuana users than in nonusers, both at the beginning and at the end of the study.\" Thus, it is evident from the study that marijuana not only negatively affects your brain; these negative effects linger within your brain even after a month (this is not that all surprising, considering cannabis has nearly 400 chemicals inside it). In other words, even after you have stopped using marijuana, your blood flow is still altered, which can lead to trouble thinking or remembering things. Furthermore, this study also revealed that cannabis causes high levels of pulsatility index (PI). \"The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes,\" says researcher Ronald Herning. B) Marijuana also causes several detrimental medical effects to one's health (both short-term and long-term). This includes slowed reaction time, distorted sense of time, anxiety, depression, and lower levels of sperm count and quality (in men). Other symptoms include weakening of the immune system, limiting the brain's capacity to retrieve and store information, damage to the brain's memory functions (including math and verbal skills), increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack, and loss of motivation and/or interest in everyday activities [3] [4]. These side affects in turn lead to things such as car accidents (if driving after having smoked marijuana), trouble learning, lowered grades, shoddy work, and possibly even a heart attack. In addition, cannabis is addictive, despite what pot smokers may tell you. I do not mean physically addictive, but rather psychologically addictive [3]. However, it is also possible that marijuana is physically addictive. Some symptoms of withdrawal from pot may include aggression, anxiety, and a depressed mood. C) Cannabis is even more dangerous when used by the young population, whose minds are still developing. Studies have shown that various risky behaviors such as gambling, drinking, fighting, steroid use, and smoking cigarettes were all associated with higher risk for marijuana [5]. Self-harm behaviors were also associated with marijuana use. By legalizing marijuana, the government would be exposing our young population (this includes students, children, etc.) even more than before to this drug. D) Now, marijuana alone is obviously detrimental to one's health (as shown above); however, it gets even worse when mixed with other drugs. For example, if I were to mix marijuana with cocaine and smoke it, then the effects on my health would be much worse than before. By legalizing this drug, the government would be allowing the people to mix marijuana with other drugs, causing the danger upon one's health to increase significantly. Pro's Case- Marijuana is dangerous My opponent: \"So, quite simply, if Marijuana is less dangerous than other legalised products, then it should be legalised.\" This statement is not true. Simply because another drug that is legalized does not make it okay to legalize another less dangerous drug. Marijuana, as I have shown, is clearly detrimental to one's health (especially mixed with other drugs); thus, all the government would be doing is exposing the people to even more harmful drugs, and their justification would be that it is less harmful when compared to some of the most dangerous drugs on the planet (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, etc.). They should be more focused on getting rid of alcohol and tobacco instead of simply increasing the danger to society. It is never wise to fight fire with fire, or in this case, add fire to even more fire. Furthermore, my opponent's source [4] simply leads to a page stating, \"Lead Poisoning Due to Adulterated Marijuana,\" which simply supports me as it shows the dangers of marijuana. It is because of this that I would like to ask where my opponent has gotten the following information he put in R2: \"But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.\" Moreover, while cannabis may not increase the risk of lung cancer, it may increase the risk of testicular cancer. \"The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence.\" [6] Therefore, it is evident that cannabis may also cause testicular cancer, which is another health risk (out of many) that this drug causes. Is there any danger at all? My opponent: \"The legalisation of pure marijuana is what I am advocating.\" Actually, my opponent is advocating the legislation of marijuana and not just pure marijuana, as was agreed upon in the first round. In addition, pure marijuana is still harmful (as I have previously shown). Afterward, my opponent posts more arguments in my favor. Please note that my opponent is advocating cannabis with lead in it, and that lead is extremely harmful to one's health as Pro has proved for me. Is this really something that you want to be smoking? Do you wish to smoke something that has detrimental effects that are (as Pro puts it), \"life long and irreversible?\" If it ain't broke, don't fix it Here my opponent attempts to show that legalizing marijuana we will increase our own economic situation; however, I can just as easily show examples where legalization did not work. For example, the Netherlands was having second thoughts on legalizing marijuana. [7] [8] \"After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds.\" [7] \"Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who \"complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht's small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems.\" [7] As you can see, while Panama may have been successful in their legalization, the Netherlands certainly were not. This is most likely due to different variables that are changing throughout the country. In other words, the legalization of marijuana alone is not enough to help or hurt a country, because other variables could affect the outcome (after all, it took Panama five years to get positive results, and many different things can change in five years). Conclusion- From the evidence that I have provided, it is clear that marijuana is harmful to human health due to a plethora of detrimental side affects and is even more dangerous when mixed with drugs already legalized; thus, it should stay banned. [1] http://alcoholism.about.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.cesar.umd.edu... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.news-medical.net... [7] http://www.justthinktwice.com... [8] http://alcoholism.about.com...."],"string":"[\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nMy opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder. My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, \\\"happiness\\\" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution. What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. Per the New York Times: \\\"In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it \\\"shockingly easy\\\" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as \\\"primary caregivers\\\" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program.\\\" It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched. REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications. Sources (not including those previously used): http://www.pendulum.org... http://www.nytimes.com...\",\n \"Marijuana Legalization\\nThat's why it will be regulated and tax the hell out of and college kids can get it as easy as alcohol now anyways. You can go to and street next to a college campus and find pot. In my small town of 400 there are about 10 dealers. If you are trying to. say that its bad for you I agree with the cancer causing effect when it is smoked because anything inhales that's not oxygen is dangerous to the lung and can cause cancer because it is foreign to the body. but its health benefits outweigh the negatives. I use it for the constant pain i have in my knee and to help me sleep became i have insomnia. I'm glad you agree with me with medical marijuana but displeased you don't think it should be allowed for recreational usage.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana should be a legal option\\nI challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized\\nThank you for your timely opening round. In this round, I will refute my opponents arguments. Legalization of a substance My opponent states that legalizing something will result in higher usage; we agree on this point. Society will deem it more appropriate to follow the law, as is apparent. However, when Con states that Great Britain had a 15% increase in deaths from all drug once marijuana penalties were downgraded, we must look at the facts. The numbers used in this source are miniscule, nothing that can actually be substantial enough to show a link between marijuana and harder drugs (gateway effect). Deaths from Ecstasy increased from 33 in 2003 and 48 in 2004; cocaine increased from 113 to 147 in this time span; heroin 591 to 744. There are a multitude of variables that most likely change the number of deaths per year from these drugs. Citing the fact that they lessened marijuana penalties as reason why more are dead isn't logical. On top of this, these numbers are far too small to look into. Medicine My opponent states that he can point to another drug that accomplishes the same effects as marijuana with less harm. If we take a look at the statistics, which I will greatly expand on later, marijuana has caused zero deaths [1]. Over-the-counter-medicines and prescription medicines have killed thousands [2]. \\\"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, unintentional overdose deaths involving prescription opioids increased 114 percent from 2001 (3,994) to 2005 (8,541), the most recent nationwide data available...\\\" [2] I would love for my opponent to point to something that can alleviate anxiety, anorexia, pain, vomiting, and many others, while having MINIMUM side effects. I will happily go find statistic on how many have overdosed on that drug, because they most definitely exist. In accordance to my opponent's statement's about carcinogens in marijuana being more abundant then in tobacco, I can agree. Marijuana does indeed contain a high amount of carcinogens. However, marijuana also contains THC, which actually helps deter cancer. \\\"...marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which [Tashkin] said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.\\\" [3] He states that marijuana contains 20 times the risk of lung cancer, but again, there is not a single case of lung cancer from marijuana alone [1]. On top of this, the study actually doesn't include hard evidence that links marijuana to lung cancer, but has \\\"hypothetical\\\" and \\\"could\\\" used in it, words that are not definite. The lowering of the immune system is not validly represented by my opponent. According to my opponent's source, marijuana weakens the immune system in those who already have immune system deficiencies, which is solely due to the smoke. \\\"Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells.\\\" [4] Again, it states this in accordance to those with immune deficiencies. To administer this medicine to these patients with deficiencies in their immune systems, marijuana should be ingested. This eliminates the smoke factor and eliminates all chance of infection in these people, while leaving the medicinal calming effect. What my opponent advocates is more pills and more artificial drugs, which end up killing a fair amount of people yearly. For example, take Vioxx. It was created to alleviate pain for arthritis, yet also created more than double the chance of heart attacks and strokes in users [5]. Marijuana, however, would not increase either of these risks, yet will alleviate that pain. Individual harms It must be made clear that 30,000 people do not die every year in Britain smoking cannabis. This is a misrepresentation of evidence by my opponent. Every reader here can look over the source. It does not state that 30K a year die, but that 30K a year could die. Here is the exact quote: \\\"Cannabis may be responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year if the ill-effects of smoking the drug are comparable to those of smoking tobacco, researchers say.\\\" This is not the same as my opponent's statement. The article goes on to make hypothetical comparisons, all of which are unsubstantiated. Con's 64,000 deaths stat was not found on the link he provided, nor could I find it on some other anti-cannabis sites. Con then states that you can become mentally retarded by smoking weed and says your lungs will be annihilated. While the latter of these two has already been refuted (no lung cancer, no deaths, and actual prevention of cancer in the lungs), the former has not. Again, however, the evidence was construed from the original source. The source actually targets those under the age of 15 who have smoke cannabis. 10% of them developed schizophrenia by age 26. Obviously, just as with tobacco and alcohol, there would be age limits along with legalization. Nowhere did I advocate for no age limits. 15 is a young age where the brain is still developing. Still, the number is again a very small one (1 out of 10). Addictive- My opponent's source for this dates back to 1984, something I would consider a little too old to be using in a debate on current data and trends. Also, my sources point to the other direction. A chart was put together, comprised of a variety of drugs, in an attempt to rate them addiction wise, 1-6, 6 being highest/ very dependent. Categories were established to evaluate all facets of the drug. In dependence, marijuana got a 1, lower than coffee. It also got a one in withdrawal and tolerance [6]. This shows marijuana not to be addictive. Even if marijuana was addictive, it's irrelevant, for a user has the right to get addicted if they so wish. Why is tobacco legal? Nicotine achieved a 6 on the chart, yet it's sold in every gas station in America. \\\"Fail at education\\\" Again, marijuana won't be administered to kids, though the source yet again is taken out of context. 15% of car accidents in teens involve marijuana- \\\"...often in combination with alcohol or other drugs.\\\" [7] is the other part of that article. Even so, studies suggest that those who drive after smoking are capable [1]. Family Con states marijuana users are sick more often than not. His source doesn't state this. Marijuana users don't steal money. Property damage wasn't linked in the source, which was from 1999. For characters sake, I must not elaborate too much on the remainder of the points. I will state that if marijuana were to be legalized, legitimate traders would benefit more then illegitimate. Growing on your own would obviously be prohibited, and the quality of the marijuana shops would be supreme to the shady drug dealer who lives in the dark alley who has brick weed and coke he likes to mix in....Come on, which would you pick? Political lobbying and lawsuits comes with every company. That's not sufficient reason to not legalize something. |Conclusion| I've refuted Con's points. We can all see marijuana to be harmless, beneficial to the economy, and beneficial to the patient. Thank You. Sources 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 2. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... 5. Owen, David G., \\\"Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate,\\\" Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 737 6. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 7. http://www.drugabuse.gov...\",\n \"Drug Legalization\\nI thank con for their arguments, as now I would like to present by rebuttal to debunk his arguments on why drugs should not be legalized.A. War on drugsThe enourmous cost on America's War on Drugs is pretty bad. We are throwing too many prisnors in jail for non-violent drug crimes. Most prisnors are in jail due to drugs, and overdose deaths are at an all time high. Also, making drugs legal does not mean more people are going to use them. Many people are aware that some drugs (cocaine, meth, opiates, ect.) are bad and they won't use them even if they are legal. Illicit drugs are very easy to get thanks to dealers. Drug dealers are drug dealers due to the insane amoutn of money they get. Having something illegal does not simply cause it to decrease. If drug use has decreased over the years, it was due to education about drugs, not the legal status. Drug use in the US is higher than in any other country and USA criminalizes drugs more than any other country.War on drugs is simply not working, people are just thrown in jail and very few actually receive drug treatment. We should not be throwing non-violent drug users in jail. Mexico has decriminalized possession of drugs, you can legally possess small-medium quantities of drugs as a Mexican citizen. Yet, drug use still remains lower in Mexico.\\\"I would like to remind my opponent that he is advocating for drug legalization, not drug treatment over punishment.\\\"Legalization would mean treatment is easier and there's no punishment. sourceshttp://pastebin.com...B. HeroinWhile Jzonda's argument for heroin possibly going the same way as tobacco, there can be laws passed to prevent this. Laws can be passed to maintain the purity of heroin. Many heroin users are thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses and the criminalization of heroin may scare them from finding drug treatment. Only around 15% of heroin addicts actually receive treatment, so finding treatment may not be as easy as you think.\\\"Neither of Pro’s last two paragraphs in this section justify heroin being legalized. One talks about medical marijuana and ibogaine lowering addiction rates for heroin. This does not make a case for heroin being legalized.\\\"I apologize for that as I should have retitled them \\\"A better way to prevent heroin addiction.\\\" A junkie can easily live a normal life if they can easily get enough heroin easily to support their addiction. If a junkie can use heroin without harming anybody, why should they be criminalized? C. PsychedelicsOne of jzonda's first arguments was that psychedelics require higher doses for the same effects when tolerance builds up. This may be true, however psychedelics can still be used in moderation, just a higher hit every time. Drug tollerance only builds up with prolonged and constant usage of drugs. Some of my sources have supported the claim that psychedelics can positively impact someone's life. 2 examples are the study that magic mushrooms can expand your mind and Steve Jobs implying that dropping acid has enhanced his creativity. I don't know but expanding your mind and enhanced creativity sounds like a positive impact on life. I have also given some sources giving first hand accounts of people who claim psychedelics positively impacted them. Another point Con has mentioned is that some people use hallucinogens to escape reality. Computers and video games can also be used to escape reality and many people use them for a quick escape from reality. Should these drugs really be outlawed just because some people can't use them properly? Many people if not the majority of psychedelic users use it properly. Hallucinogens can be used to enhance reality aswell, not just to escape it. Many things (food, video games, computers, phones, television, partying ect.) can be abused. Con's point that usage may increase from legalization of psychedelics, I may actually agree on this. However, there is nothing wrong with increased usage because if used properly, psychedelics can be good for you. If people are well educated about harm reduction and properly using psychedelics, then I do not personally see the issue. One way to avoid abuse is if people must be properly educated about harm reduction before being able to legally buy hallucinogenic drugs. There are negative properties to psychedelic abuse but flashbacks are very rare. Remember that psychedelics also have many positive effects which can outweigh the flashbacks to some people. Sourceshttp://pastebin.com...D. Medical Marijuana Jzonda has mentioned alternative cancer treatments without hemp oil. However, a lot of these treatments if not all are very harmful or they do much more harm then hemp oil. The 2 main cancer treatments are chemotherapy and radiation therapy which both can be severly harmful. The cancer treatments you mentioned are not effective because they target everything, not just tumour cells. Hemp has an anti-tumoral effect in which it only targets cancerous cells leaving the healthy cells alone. Marijuana is not that harmful at all, it's safer than many legal drugs such as caffiene, alcohol or nicotine. The negative effects are commonly exaggerated by anti-drug people. CBD (cannabidol) rich strains of cannabis reduce the negative effects of THC (tetrahydracannabinol). CBD can also halt seizures and is approved as a safe and effective medicine for childhood epilepsy.Hemp can also be used for chronic pain management. Currently, opiates are used to kill pain. Opiate drugs have very high abuse potention and are far more dangerous than hemp, prescripion opiate painkillers are just weaker forms of heroin. Opiate abuse often leads to heroin addiction. Hemp is not only safer, but is also more effective at fighting chronic pain than opiates ever could. When pain becomes really serious, high doses of opiates can easily lead to abuse. You can also look up other medical properties of cannabis, it has a lot of medical uses. Abuse with marijuana does exist but caffiene abuse is a much bigger issue. Caffiene is more addictive and possibly more harmful than marijuana. Just because some people abuse marijuana does not mean everybody does. Most people use marijuana responsibly and it shouldn't be outlawed just because of a few irresponsible people. sourceshttp://pastebin.com...http://news.distractify.com...Con's CaseLegalization ProblemsI have debunked most of Con's cases about drug legalization causing increase in usage, crime and potency. Drug usage is highest in US when it is most criminalized in USA as opposed to other countires such as Mexico where possesion of drugs is legal.A lower cost of drugs from legalization can be a good thing because addicts have a better chance of living a normal life. An addict will go mad and insane if they don't have their fix and participate in violent crimes to get their next fix. However, an addict will not do that much crazy things if they have enough drugs. Cheaper drugs mean addicts can afford them without doing some crazy shiz. Synthetic DrugsNote that synthetic drugs just mean drugs that are produced in labs instead of found in nature. LSD and MDMA are both synthetic but many people can use them in moderation. There are some synthetic drugs that are bad, yes but we shouldn't just throw users of these drugs in jail like that. Legalization will not cause increase in use if people know it's bad for them, dealers make drugs as easy to get as something that's legal. Other DrugsYou have also mentioned that I did not give reasons for meth, cocaine or other drugs to be legalized which I will give now. Legalization of other hard drugs can be seen the same way as my reasons with heroin legalization. A legal and cheaper drug market will mean addicts are safer.additional sourceshttp://pastebin.com...\",\n \"Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp\\nI will begin this round by clarifying the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to restate it in his favor. The resolution clearly states that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) can (not should) legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The and/or part of the resolution is stated as such because the DEA has lumped both together under their prohibition of marijuana (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). The DEA does not recognize industrialized hemp, which uses a non-euphoric strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana (. http://naihc.org...), as a separately scheduled substance. The and/or is also presented because the two, medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, can be dealt with separately through the DEA and FDA. The PAC's that advocate legalization of industrialized hemp are concerned with the hemp industry, and the advocates of medical marijuana are concerned with it's use as a medicine. There are PAC's (political action committees) lobbying for both, but they are generally treated as separate issues with benefits for different individuals throughout society (patients vs. farmers). Therefore, my resolution stands as originally stated. To respond to my opponents first three contentions would be to deviate from my own resolution. My premise for this debate does not advocate the legalization of medical marijuana, rather my resolution is regarding the power the US Federal Government possesses to legalize either medical marijuana, industrialized hemp, or both. My opponent claims that it is the duty of the government to serve and protect it's citizens, and implies that it is the duty of the government to protect it's citizens from harming their own health. This is not a valid contention against the power of the Federal Government to legalize medical marijuana because the government has legalized harmful substances in the past (alcohol, cigarettes, the medical use of morphine, morphinol, and other opiates, the medical use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, etc. , etc. , etc. ). (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). Even cocaine and powdered opium are Schedule II drugs, which means they have an accepted medical use and can be prescribed by a doctor. My opponent claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. I contend that nearly any medicine has the potential for abuse, and I will define drug abuse as taking a psychoactive drug or performance enhancing drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Indeed alcohol has a much higher potential for abuse, it is a drug, and does not have nearly the accepted medical use as marijuana. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(I could not find a source for the medical use of alcohol)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Though I will not argue the issue of high potential for abuse, I will argue his contention that medical marijuana has an \\\"enormous lack of accepted safety for use of the drug\\\". Rescheduling requires that it be accepted for medical use, and I will list what a few medical agencies say about the issue: \\\"The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana . .. under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications. \\\" Reference: 1996-1997 AAFP Reference Manual - Selected Policies on Health Issues \\\"The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government . .. to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate IND program for medical marijuana, and . .. reschedul[ing] marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and . .. end[ing] the medical prohibition against marijuana. \\\" Reference: AMSA House of Delegates Resolution #12 : adopted March 1993 \\\"The American Nurses Association will: . .. Support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana/cannabis under appropriate prescriber supervision. Support the ability of health care providers to discuss and/or recommend the medicinal use of marijuana without the threat of intimidation or penalization. Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis. \\\" Reference: ANA Resolution: June 2003 American Preventive Medical Association \\\"Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government. \\\" Reference: \\\"Medicinal Use of Marijuana\\\" policy statement: December 8, 1997 Belgian Ministry of Health \\\"[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use. . .. This is an area where public health must prevail. \\\" Reference: Statement of the Health Ministry, as quoted in Expatica. com (Brussels), September 4, 2003. British Medical Association \\\"Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. . .. [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments. \\\" Reference: BMA report: \\\"Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis:\\\" November 1997 So not only is marijuana widely accepted in the medical community as medically beneficial, the side effects are far less harmful than those of other drugs, including many Schedule II drugs like cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal Laws that undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would legalize marijuana because Federal prohibition of marijuana falls under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (please see R1 for argument and sources). House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would express support for \\\"a very small number of individuals\\\" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity. If HR 5843 were passed, the House would support marijuana smokers possessing up to 100 grams -- about 3� ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also give its blessing to the \\\"nonprofit transfer\\\" of up to an ounce of marijuana. The resolution would not address laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not speak to state laws regarding marijuana use. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs. It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because the US Federal Government has the power- in various forms, ie. House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition- to \\\"eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana\\\" as stated in House Res. 5843, and legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal, I affirm that the US Federal Government CAN legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nMarijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nMedical Marijuana is the future of medicine. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance meaning it has the greatest potential for abuse with no medical value, according to the FDA. While the FDA doesn\\\"t consider marijuana a medicine, 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use to help diagnose over 25 different conditions. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 24 out of the 50 states in the US and the number is currently growing. For example, in Colorado, a state where Medical Marijuana is legalized, 1 in every 30 people are Medical Marijuana patients meaning they have a Medical Marijuana card allowing them to purchase their medicine from dispensaries. These are just a few numbers to prove the increase of Medical Marijuana use in America. Almost thirty percent of people suffer from pain or pain related symptoms every day. Physicians that can prescribe medical marijuana have found that they have prescribed about 1,826 fewer doses of drugs, such as opioids. As this topic grows and affects American culture, we have to decide what the right choice will be to help cure our loved ones. Medical Marijuana is also a short-term cure for cancer and is used for patients with autism. The family\\\"s that have to go through these problems would do and try anything to help the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Doctor\\\"s and families rely on Medical Marijuana to help alleviate pain, so why does the FDA want to stop the sales and distribution of Medical Marijuana?\",\n \"Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized\\nValor has fallen victim to \\\"Reefer Madness!\\\" :) Marinol is not as effective as marijuana. Steve Kubby has survived for over twenty-five years a form of cancer expected to cause his death as a young man. He credits medical marijuana for prolonging his life. In 2006, despite the legalization of medical marijuana in California, Kubby and his wife were arrested on unconstitutional anti-drug laws that violated the sovereignty of California. Here is how Marinol worked out for him: \\\"With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into the spinal cord, brain and organs.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... You cite the FDA as if it is some kind of authority. The FDA is a political bureaucracy that, like all bureaucracies, exists in order to expand its scope, budget, and power. There are thousands of medical doctors who support the use of medical marijuana, and several states have enacted laws to legalize it. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong -- why do you think there has to be one solution for everyone? Do you want to put dying AIDS and cancer patients in jail for using the medicine that they think works best for them? For using a medicine that might be more affordable, particularly if homegrown? You are shilling for the corporate drug companies in the medical-industrial complex (what a surprise, the AMA is against legalization!), and you are arguing for continued human suffering, death, and financial poverty brought on by high drug prices. As for the government studies you cite: I could cite non-government counter-studies -- anyone can just Google it. There is difference of opinion and impure motives on both sides. Why does there have to be just one solution? If medical marijuana were legal, then individuals and doctors could choose whether to use or prescribe it. If a doctor thought it was not effective, he could prescribe something else. You then demonstrate there are negative side effects to marijuana usage -- this just makes it like every other drug on the planet. Of course, there are negative side effects! Watch TV and you'll see plenty of ads for government-approved drugs that can cause everything from increased blood pressure to an urge to gamble! The negative side effects, as well as the health risks for personal/recreational use make a great argument for not using it -- but no argument for making it illegal. I don't smoke marijuana because of the negative health effects. I don't smoke cigarettes either. But I do eat Big Macs and drink beer, both of which are unhealthy. Should they be banned too? Obesity and alcoholism are much greater problems in America than marijuana \\\"addiction.\\\" By the way: Marijuana is not physically addictive. It is only mentally addictive. There are people who are officially categorized as sex addicts. The consequences of sex can be far more harmful than marijuana (unwanted pregnancy and AIDS come to mind). So should sex be banned, or at least regulated? Even though sex can be \\\"addictive\\\" and harmful, the vast majority of people make responsible choices with sex. Just as the vast majority of Americans currently make responsible choices with marijuana. Marijuana is addictive like MySpace or Nintendo (or Debate.org), not like alcohol or cocaine. Marijuana a gateway drug? Sure. The type of people who are prone to use heroin are going to use marijuana first because it is more widely available. But they probably drink alcohol before that. And they probably drink soda before that. If the fact that heroin users first use marijuana can be blamed on marijuana, then obviously, marijuana usage should be blamed on soda, and by your logic, soda should be made illegal, too. In fact, breast milk could be cited as the \\\"gateway\\\" to all drugs and crimes and other horrors in the world. You truly are a victim of government propaganda and Reefer Madness. Look, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent is saying that marijuana makes people violent -- even the government hasn't made such outlandish claims since the 1930s. We all know people who use marijuana and aren't violent. In fact, we probably know people who are specifically not violent because they use marijuana! You are against health freedom. You are for bureaucrats and central governments dictating the healthcare choices of sick people, and I find that morally offensive. There are thousands of people who use medical marijuana in the U.S., and the reasons they do so are none of your business. Recreational use is none of your business, either. As cited in the previous round, alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition, but it did not go up appreciably following the end of Prohibition. There's no reason to believe marijuana would be any different (although use certainly is higher now than when it was legal -- Prohibition creates higher prices, which in term create profits for drug dealers, which create an incentive to market the product, etc. -- FACT). You mostly ignored my arguments and focused in on marinol, and the government studies that suggest it is an effective alternative. I will ask you once again to answer the following questions: 1. Do you admit that marijuana has medicinal benefit beyond its application as a pain killer (stimulating appetite being one such benefit)? 2. Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? 3. Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? 4. Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? 5. Do you think that the Drug War has been worth the fiscal and social costs, especially given the fact that people still want and use drugs? NEW QUESTION #6: Should alcohol and cigarettes be banned, and if not, why not? Please answer my questions in Round 3. If you do not answer the questions, I can only assume that you concede the points, and that's a lot of points to concede.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nNevertheless, there are aspects I would like to note: 1: Con has failed to address any of my supports up to the conclusion thus conceding to each and every single point of mine. 2: Con has repeatedly ignored the point made that it is up to users to decide on what to do with marijuana. He has only reiterated his point on how harmful marijuana CAN be, never addressing the user's decision nor defending any rebuttals by Pro (me). 3. Recall the phrase issued by Con \\\"damages brain, repertory. .. \\\" This is completely absurd. Repertory refers to a theatrical presentation which is completely deviating from this debate.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nWe agree on all definitions so let's now move onto the case. C1: Medical Marijuana has been medically proven to have numerous benefits. If need be, I could potentially use all my space going on about the medical benefits of marijuana and how marijuana can benefit us however I'll provide three different benefits today. Sub-Point A: Alzheimer's Disease (Thanks Danielle! ) Lisa M. Eubanks, PhD, Staff Scientist at the Scripps Research Institute and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology notes, \\\"THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease [by] simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer's disease\\\" [1] Since the characterization of the Cannabis sativa produced cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinol in the 1960s, this natural product has been widely explored as an antiemetic, anticonvulsive, anti-inflammatory, and analdebilitating disease are critical as Alzheimer's disease afflicts over 20 million people worldwide, with the number of diagnosed cases continuing to rise at an exponential rate [2]. These studies have demonstrated the ability of cannabinoids to provide neuroprotection against amyloid peptide toxicity. [3] Thus we see that medical marijuana provides plausible assistance with a prevalent disease, Alzheimer's Disease. Sub-Point B- HIV/AIDS Numerous studies have shown that medical marijuana has benefited AIDS. While I urge the readers to do some research on their own, I'll summarize some of the results of experimentation. “The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy. There are no drugs specifically approved to treat that kind of pain. Three times daily for nearly a week, the patients smoked marijuana cigarettes machine-rolled at the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the only legal source for the drug recognized by the federal government. Half the patients received marijuana, while the other 25 received placebo cigarettes that lacked the drug's active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Scientists said the study was the first one published that used a comparison group, which is generally considered the gold standard for scientific research. Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale. ” [4] Investigators at Columbia University published clinical trial data in 2007 showing that HIV/AIDS patients who inhaled cannabis four times daily experienced substantial increases in food intake with little evidence of discomfort and no impairment of cognitive performance. They concluded that smoked marijuana has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive patients. [5] In another study in 2008, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine found that marijuana significantly reduces HIV-related neuropathic pain when added to a patient's already-prescribed pain management regimen and may be an \\\"effective option for pain relief\\\" in those whose pain is not controlled with current medications. Mood disturbance, physical disability, and quality of life all improved significantly during study treatment. [6]Medical Marijuana also has numerous ways to help treat HIV/AIDS, yet another epidemic in today's society. Sub-Point C: Cancer According to a 2007 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body. [7] A study by Complutense University of Madrid found the chemicals in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy. The research team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and in people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor shrank. Usingelectron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. [8] Cannabis has been found to help cancer patients with pain and nausea, and recent research indicates it has tumor-reducing and anti-carcinogenic properties properties as well. It has proven highly effective at controlling the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and its appetite-stimulation properties help combat wasting. Cannabis can also help control the pain associated with some cancers, as well as that resulting from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. [9]Finally, we can come to the conclusion that Medical Marijuana can help cure cancer. When we look back, I have provided three benefits for three prevalent diseases: Alzheimer's Disease, HIV/AIDS, as well as cancer. I could go on and on discussing mental disorder benefits as well as Glaucoma, but I don't want to bore the readers and I urge them to do some of their own research. C2: The government should not decide whether medical marijuana should be illegal or not, let the competent doctors decide. This whole issue comes down to simply whether or not medical marijuana should be prescribed by doctors. The federal government should not have its say in determining whether or not the doctors can prescribe the marijuana or not. We should allow the experienced doctors to determine whether or not a patient should receive marijuana, not the federal government. Thus, when we look onto the doctor's opinions we see doctors believe it should be prescribed. According to the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog: The American College of Physicians, 124,000 members strong, has issued a 13-page position paper asking the federal government to drop marijuana from its classification as a substance considered to have no medicinal value and a high chance of abuse . . . \\\"They've said essentially that the federal government has it all wrong,\\\" Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, [says]. [10] Along with this association, numerous doctors and individuals believe that medical marijuana should be prescribed. At the point at which the competent individuals and the ones who spend their whole entire lives working in the field of medicine believe it should be prescribed, why would the federal government have any say? I can provide more sources and more examples but I think when you look at what I have provided throughout all the sources (most from doctors) you can come to the conclusion that doctors believe it is a necessity and obligatory to legalize medical marijuana. Conclusion: Medical marijuana has been empirically proven to benefit diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. Many doctors want to legalize marijuana and the experienced doctors should decide whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, not a governing body. Let the decision rest upon the individuals who spend their lives working in the field of medicine, not those who do not have enough knowledge on the topic. By letting this occur, we see many doctors are in favor of legalizing medical marijuana and it would have enormous positive impacts on today's society and well-being. For these reasons, I urge a PRO vote. See . http://www.debate.org... sources.\",\n \"Marijuana Legalization\\nIntroduction:Though many have deviated from past standards opposing marijuana legalization, I still stand firm in my belief that marijuana should not be legalized. As I will show in the continuation of this round, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons as to why this illegal drug should not be legalized.C1) Marijuana is a harmful drug.No matter what camouflage or disguise is plastered onto it, the substance remains the same: a drug. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. Essentially, all drugs have harmful effects. This holds true in regards to marijuana. The University of Washington documents its respiratory effects. “A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze – similar to that of tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011).” [1]But the problem doesn’t stop there. The same article explains, “Additionally, many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which further increases the harm. Numerous studies have found that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive, with more respiratory problems in those who smoke both substances than in those who only smoke one or the other (Wu et al, 1988).” [1] Because the use of marijuana is directly linked to cigarette usage, these statistics are relevant as well.Beyond that, other health problems come from marijuana, including cancer. This is once again detailed by the University of Washington. “Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene [than cigarettes], both known carcinogens (Tashkin, 2013). Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).” Cancer is also a problem when considering the legalization of marijuana. With so many individuals already affected by cancer, increasing its prevalence is an obvious detriment.Statistically, the potency of the drug is increasing as well. Live Science supports this notion by quoting, “According to research from the Potency Monitoring Project, the average THC content of marijuana has soared from less than 1 percent in 1972, to 3 to 4 percent in the 1990s, to nearly 13 percent today.” [2] THC is the intoxicating chemical in marijuana. The increase in this is causing a more powerful and harmful substance.C2) Marijuana legalization would result in an increase of marijuana use.Legalizing a substance, even for strictly medical purposes, is bound to increase use. In fact, the Office of National Drug Control Policy supports this notion. “A recent report from the RAND Corporation, “Altered State,” discusses how legalization would cause the price of marijuana to plummet, triggering increases in use of the drug.” [3] Essentially, the illegal nature of marijuana keeps the prices high. Lower prices would inevitably allow, and even encourage, more people to use the drug. More use encourages more abuse, thereby causing more people to be affected by the aforementioned concerns and health complications.Although alcohol use is vastly more than marijuana use, legalization would close the gap. Moreover, previous experience with attempts to legalize other drugs (such as Oxycontin) have proven faulty and unsuccessful. Even if controlling methods were implemented, they weren’t effective in regulating even legal use.C3) Legalization of marijuana reverses moral values.Although many claim that marijuana is beneficial in medical fields, there is not strong support for this notion. In fact, the Buffalo News points this out. “There is not an adequate base of research that shows marijuana is effective for treating any serious medical condition. Therefore, no major group of medical experts supports the use of smoked marijuana for treatment of health problems.” [4] This shows medical marijuana ineffective. If this is true, marijuana is left to only harm individuals. Thus, legalizing marijuana would promote the harm of individuals rather than the assistance.If marijuana is legalized to increase revenue, and fabricate a better economy, it serves to value economics above humanity. Morality, however, values humanity inexplicably and irrefutably above the economy. Rhetorically, if humanity is being devalued solely to value economy, what is the need for an economy if humanity is being harmed? In reality, there isn’t a need for economy in this scenario.Since legalization of this drug does devalue humanity, any economic benefits are equally countered by the subsequent devalue of humanity.C4) Previous legalizations have had adverse effects.Perhaps the most popular legalization to date, in the US, is Colorado. While many share success stories of the legalization, we find that more relevant are the detrimental effects that are widespread and prevailing. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report titled “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: the Impact” that detailed few important consequences of the legislation. Among others, key findings included: “The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally.” [5] These drastic and dire statistics show that the supposed “benefits” of legalizing marijuana fall without merit, when compared to the detriments and harms.Furthermore, the governor of Colorado regrets the decision to legalize marijuana. The Daily Mail documents this phenomenon, “Speaking on CBNC, the 62-year-old Democrat said: 'If I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would've reversed the election and said, \\\"This was a bad idea\\\".'” [6] As the governor realizes the fault with legalizing marijuana, and we understand the consequences that have arisen from the legalization, we must negate the resolution and oppose legalizing marijuana.Rebuttals:My opponent first speaks of Colorado, but I have already effectively shown, with evidence (something my opponent lacked) that this claim does not hold water. He next brings up the fact that people should have the freedom to smoke. However, when economy is valued before humanity, and the preservation of citizens (which is a governments foremost duty), we find that morality is twisted. Instead, humanity should be valued before economy.His next argument assumes that we should trust his claims rather than credible sources. He has not shown evidence to back up his claims, thus, they fall without merit. Furthermore, even if not as severe, marijuana does have “buzz” and is detrimental (as shown in C1).He claims that marijuana has medical benefits, but as I showed in C3, this is not scientifically sound. The support for this notion is weak. Besides, I have also brought up multiple arguments detailing and proving that marijuana is a health hazard.Conclusion:Conclusively, we find that legalizing marijuana would be an inferior option to the popular status quo. Thus, from a moral and pragmatic standpoint, we are fully obligated to negate the resolution, and keep marijuana illegal in the US.Sources: [1] http://adai.uw.edu...[2] http://www.livescience.com...[3] http://www.iowa.gov...[4] http://www.buffalonews.com...[5] http://www.rmhidta.org...[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...\",\n \"In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use\\nAt a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate. Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’. In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’. The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself. Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. . Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nNow let's move on to my final rebuttal and conclusion. R1: Terrible Health DefectsThis seems to be what my opponent's case essentially revolves around. It should be noted that while marijuana does have side effects and a potential for harm, almost every drug does as well. The only sources that my opponent has nonchalantly thrown out that are actually against marijuana don't even discuss medical use. The credible sources that he provides actually advocate for medical marijuana which my opponent does not even realize. My opponent fails to establish why morphine or novocaine should be legal in that case as well. As I stated earlier, numerous medical programs recognize marijuana as relatively safe for medical use. Let's go in depth and see what they say. According to an approved statement from the US Department of Justice in 1988, \\\"Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. \\\" [1] From January 1997 to June 2005, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported zero deaths caused by the primary use of marijuana. Through that time period, 279 deaths were reported where marijuana was a possible \\\"concomitant\\\" drug used in conjunction with other drugs at the time of death. In contrast, common FDA-approved drugs which are often prescribed in lieu of marijuana (such as anti-emetics and anti-psychotics), were the primary cause of 10,008 deaths. [2]R2: FDA Statement? ?So yes apparently the FDA did issue a blanket statement disregarding all medicinal values of medical marijuana. This does not by any means mean it should be illegal. In fact many medical institutions have been negatively stigmatizing the FDA for making such lavish claims. To help prove the ridiculousness of this claim, I refer to Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente. The FDA's pronouncement tells us little about medical marijuana, but it says much about how politics appears to be trumping science at the agency we all depend on to protect our health. .. .The federal government has not only refused to fund medical marijuana research, it has put in place a set of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that have kept the flow of even privately funded medical marijuana studies to a trickle. So with one hand, our government tells us 'there's no data,' while with the other hand it works to ensure there will never be enough data. So why did the FDA issue this questionable document, containing no new information whatever, at this particular moment? The only apparent explanation is politics. .. . Science, it appears, took a back seat. For the FDA to do its job as protector of our nation's health, it must be free from commercial or political pressure. When politics trumps science at the FDA, we are all in danger. \\\" [3] Let's now have a look at to what NY Times had to say about this: \\\"The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice. Ordinarily, when the F. D. A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that 'no sound scientific studies' supported the medical use of marijuana. .\\\" [4] Thus it is not at all a valid scientifical standpoint but rather a whimsical attempt by politicians to attack the marijuana user party. R3: Schizophrenia and Testicular CancerThere is really no solidification of this contention as he agrees so this has successfully been shot down because marijuana never causes Schizophrenia. Con then goes on to helplessly try to justify this by bringing up some \\\"Pro marijuana legilizaation dude\\\" (nobody knows what legilizaation is) and states how he believes it is true. This is bad conduct because there is no explanation, no source, and no credibility. I think it is clear to the readers and will move on. As far as the testicular cancer issue goes, I have significantly shot this down yet again and Con just spews out another source but I have proven that this is just another confusion of correlation and causation so we shall move on now. R4: Withdrawal and AggressionHe states that there is a possibility for one to be aggressive but there is no evidence that this has caused aggression but there is some relation. It is generally considered that marijuana has soothed and calmed people, not made them aggressive. \\\"When the system is hyper-aroused, as in today’s lifestyle, marijuana calms. The significance of this fact cannot be ignored. It explains the increased creativity reported as a part of the marijuana experience, because when both sides of brain processes are heightened, both types of brain activity are greater. The left brain notices more, while the right brain receives more. This is the unification of logic and intuition. The term “expansion of consciousness” is explained physiologically as a “shifting of brain emphasis from one-sidedness to balance” (Sugarmena and Tarter, 1978), which fits precisely with the feeling called “high. \\\" [5] Here's another statement: \\\"At low doses, most marijuana users report a sense of calm, well-being and relaxation—the exact opposite of anxiety. Recent scientific investigation reveals that in addition to a sense of calm, low doses of marijuana produce a loss of temporal awareness (time), slight mental confusion, a slowing of the thought processes, impairment of short-term memory and sometimes an awareness of attaining special insights or knowledge. \\\" [6] We can not come to the conclusion that it will increase aggression but perhaps if you smoke extensively it will. Even so, many other drugs cause far more aggression and they should be illegal as well. R5: AIDS/HIVThis rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. I urge readers to refer back to my last rebuttal. He states there is a possibility of T-cells to fight off infections but there is simply no definite cause while I have provided that there is a definite benefit on HIV/AIDSR6: Alzheimer'sThis ongoing project is only working towards achieving tangible results but has not even came close. With his evidence we can not come to any conclusions but only a rather possibility of there being side-effects, no definite harm here and can be completely disregarded. NO WARRANT! R7: Addiction and AlternativesI am begginning to run out of space but first off addiction can simply be solved with less prescription and I have already proven that it is not addictive and it is never considered addictive anymore. It is a myth that has been disproven time after time. Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links. .this is not debate but a link competition. Conclusion: Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal (arguments), uses unreliable sources such as his Dad (sources), and spells things terribly such as 'rubuttal' and 'legilizaation' (spelling). With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources. To end this I refer to Carl Sagan's video and vote PRO. . http://www.youtube.com...\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized\\nMarijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.\",\n \"Legalization of Marijuana\\nLegalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard. Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't. Unless the CDC and the FDA publishes proof that Marijuana can cure Medical issues, this country will remain split on the issue of legalizing it. Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana. Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana? Think about the questions before responding\",\n \"Marijuana should be legal\\nMarijuana is used almost like alcohol, but has been used in a more abusive way. Marijuana was used as a medicine until we abused it and perverted it into a gateway drug. just because liquor is legal doesn't mean we should use and abuse it extensively, like we have with Marijuana. and that's why Marijuana should remain illegal. Furthermore i would like to thank lightningbolt50 for the debate opportunity, and you for reading. vote for whoever you think did the best. Thank you\",\n \"Medical Marijuana should be a legal option\\n1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, \\\"There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases,\\\" Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, \\\"That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,\\\". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, \\\"Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke,\\\" This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.\",\n \"Marijuana should not be legalized.\\nThank you, Con.REBUTTALS:\\\"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns.\\\"This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below. You can see the difference between the two.My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you \\\"high\\\" and the other does it in a \\\"drunk\\\" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get \\\"high.\\\" In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely.\\\"Marijuana is NOT addictive.\\\"This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad.\\\"Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke.\\\"I'm pretty sure it is.\\\"It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness.\\\" Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.ARGUMENTS:Marijuana can affect your mental health immenselyAccording to the American Medical Association: \\\"Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders.\\\" It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:-Random thinking-A distorted sense of time-Paranoia-Anxiety-Forgetfulness-DEPRESSIONMany Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]Marijuana can affect your physical health immenselyMarijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:-Dizziness-Shallow breathing-Red eyes-Drymouth-Increased appetite (munchies)-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.Marijuana can affect your fetus babyA study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.ConclusionI believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.Your turn, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]- http://www.webmd.com...[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...\",\n \"THW Require the Provision of Cannabis in Any State Funded Medical Program\\nFor governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological\",\n \"Drugs are bad\\nWe believe that in order to win the debate any side should prove that drugs are harmful / not harmful and that the state could / could not restrict individual liberties. So our burden of proof is to prove that drugs are bad (otherwise, there would be no reason for banning them) and that the state is a legitimate actor to ban them (i.e. restrict personal freedom of choice). We will do this by two arguments and here comes the first one proving that drugs are bad in general. On the side of opposition we believe that drugs are inherently evil. They have tremendous negative consequences for the health of a person using them and for society, since a person could commit crazy actions under the influence of drugs. Moreover, part of taxes paid by residents of a country are spent on treating drug users from their addiction, which results in a loss for the welfare of the state. The argument is structured in a manner to point out harmful health effects from the usage of different drugs, and explain how work the mechanisms causing lose for society overall. 1. Negative effects on health. a. Heroin Among all drugs, heroin sometimes is encountered as the most evil. Scientific research shows that people using heroin suffer from serious health problems and have a higher mortality rate than others of the same age who do not use drugs. The increased number of injections plays as a catalyst in developing some infections like endocarditis, cellulitis and abscesses. It has a clear positive correlation with the usage of heroin, since this drug is usually consumed by injections [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. Also heroin causes serious mental disorders like anxiety and personality disorders. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] Drug addicts also have a higher rate of suicides, which is proven by some recent studies [[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/3/277]]. Some research suggests that heroin addicts are 14 times more likely to commit a suicide than their peers who do not use this drug [[http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/DI_ResearchProject/$file/Methadone+Project+sheet.pdf]]. The most popular way of committing the suicide is by deliberate drug overdose. We could propose a mechanism to describe this phenomena. A person, whose mental and physical health were undermined by heroin, who is completely desegregated from society and has no sufficient stimulus for living, under the influence of depression caused by the end of heroin \\\"high\\\" decides to commit a suicide. There are numerous examples of such people. There is also a high rate of non deliberate deaths from overdose among heroin users. Tolerance towards this drug develops very fast, which requires an addict to use the substance more frequently and at higher doses. About 10-20% of users develop such a significant dependence and tolerance that they have to use heroin every 3-4 hours [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. This makes overdose very likely to occur. Moreover, overdose could occur because of inability of the user to calculate the optimum dose for him while he is \\\"high\\\". We have shown at least some serious problems connected to heroin. We believe that there are much more, but we need to move on to our next points. b. Cocaine, crack cocaine. Cocaine also causes several harmful effects. It damages brain by taking control over the cells in the \\\"pleasure center\\\" of brain and thus causing high biological addiction towards the drug. It significantly increases blood pressure, heart rate. Could cause strokes, brain seizures, respiratory failure, heart attack, convulsions and death. It also diminishes the desire for sleep and food, thus leading to malnutrition, significant weight loss and the devastation of the user. It also has negative effects on liver, reproductive system, lungs, throat and basically every single organ of the user. Moreover, it causes several mental disorders like increased irritability and anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, depression, non-stop babbling, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, short tempers, bizarre, aggressiveness, violence, suicidal behavior, delusions, paranoia and hallucinations. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/news.php?include=133996]] We believe that all these symptoms are enough to regard cocaine as totally unacceptable. c. Marijuana. There are some people stating that marijuana in general is not harmful. May be it is the least harmful among all the drugs, but there is still evidence in favor of its harmfulness. The immediate effect from the usage of marijuana involves increased heartbeat, which leads to heart problems in the future. Intensive usage of marijuana makes a person dull, slow moving and inattentive. It harms memory, reduces concentration, swift reaction, coordination and alters the sense of time. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/marijuana-addiction.html]] Some studies showed that smoking marijuana is especially harmful for pregnant or breast feeding women, since it could affect their fetus. [[http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/cannabis-pregnancy-and-breast-feeding]] But the most crucial argument against even such \\\"light\\\" drug as marijuana is that the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs. It is hard to find a heroin addict who has never smoked weed in his life. Since under the plan all drugs will be legalized there will be no deterring effect to prevent people who started to use less harmful drugs from moving to more harmful ones. Under the status quo less harmful drugs such as marijuana are more available than those like heroin. It is much harder to buy heroin from drug dealer, because it involves more restrictions. This prevents people who tried marijuana from trying other, more harmful, drugs. If we legalize all drugs, this prevention will disappear. By the way the arguments of the government about no harm of marijuana fails here once again, since the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs, which under the plan will be legal. 2. Harms to society. a. Crazy behavior of drug addicts. There were many crimes committed under the influence of drugs, since the usage of drugs puts a person into \\\"another reality\\\", it makes it impossible for him to behave adequately in the real world. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states several facts supporting the positive correlation between the usage of drugs and committing crimes. In the US the drug test of arrested showed that from 43% in Anchorage to 79% in Philadelphia of male arrestees showed a positive result on the test of the usage of any drugs. [[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html]] After the plan is implemented and drugs become legal, the significant increase in the crime rates could follow. There are already some states putting restrictions on the sale of alcohol (like Sweden or Latvia), because they find it easier to restrict such substances rather than deal with the evil consequences. The only reason we can't put restrictions on all alcohol is because of traditions. Traditionally people got used to alcohol and tobacco so much that the ban of these substances will cause a huge response in public. Fortunately, there is no such traditional dependence on drugs, that's why it is great that we can ban them. There was an argument from the proposition that such laws allowing alcohol and restricting drugs are \\\"unfair\\\". We believe that there is no such thing as \\\"fair\\\" or \\\"unfair\\\" relating to drugs and alcohol, and we believe that we should try our best to protect our citizens. If we can't ban alcohol because of traditions, it doesn't mean that we should allow also drugs. We believe that we should protect people from as many harmful things as we can. b. Economic loss. The social costs of drug use are estimated at 0.2% of Gross National Product in the US. The costs to society of a person with opioid dependency are 45,000$ per year. This includes costs of him not working, but living on social benefits; costs of crimes he commits; and costs of medical treatment he needs when he is under the overdose. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] It is clear that economically it is much more beneficial to ban drugs and avoid this loss.\",\n \"Legalising weed\\nThanks for letting me fulfill my position.Here is my stance in this debate.\\\"1) It's extremely addictive for some people: If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to Dr. Drew Pinsky who has been working with addicts for decades. It would be malpractice to say that cannabis isn't addictive. Anybody who's experienced it, actually been addicted to it, knows how profound that addiction is.... The difficult thing about marijuana addiction is some people, even though they're addicted can do fine with it for many many years before they start to have difficultly, but eventually the high starts wearing off, people start smoking a lot more to try to get that high back and that's when they descend into difficulties. ...I've been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis. It is extremely addictive...for some people. I think that's where people get confused. It's not very addictive for many people. It's a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction. But for them it is really tough. You only need talk to them, they'll tell you how tough it is. Additionally, that \\\"small subset\\\" Dr. Drew is talking about isn't so small in a big country like America. \\\"Of the 7.3 million persons aged 12 or older classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in 2012, 4.3 million persons had marijuana dependence or abuse.\\\" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more legal and available marijuana becomes, the higher those numbers are going to go. 2) This experiment hasn't worked out so well for Amsterdam: Humans being what they are, just about any stupid idea we can come up with has already been tried somewhere else. Amsterdam is the most famous place across the world that has effectively legalized pot. It has even turned into a tourist destination for potheads. Legalizing weed has been a huge success there, right? Actually, not so much... Its citizens are now alarmed that their children are increasingly being exposed to it. Amsterdam today became the first city in the Netherlands to ban students from smoking marijuana at school. The city's mayor Eberhard van der Laan introduced the law after school chiefs complained about pupils turning up to classes high after rolling up outside the grounds. Marijuana is widely available in Holland as, although it is technically illegal, police can't prosecute people for possession of small amounts. But it has also had the unwanted side effect that Dutch children are frequently exposed to the drug in public areas. Additionally, contrary to the claims that legalizing it will reduce crime, in Amsterdam it’s been found that crime is now centering around the coffeehouses where marijuana is sold. …Certainly the outlook for coffee shops is bleak. Among the few policies that the three parties in the new coalition government agree on is the need to reduce their numbers. The governing agreement released last week laid out plans that will force them to become members-only clubs and shut down those shops located near schools. The coalition is also advancing the idea of prohibiting the sale of cannabis to non-Dutch residents, which amounts to a death knell for many coffee shops. ...The circumstances that led to the tolerance policies have changed in the past decade, as large-scale crime around coffee shops and the legal sex trade became more visible. In particular, the absence of legal means for coffee shops to obtain cannabis has highlighted their association with organized crime. But the open-minded instincts that helped foster the policies are also being questioned. And it is not just the far-right opposing coffee shops. The traditional parties of power on the center-right, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal VVD, have also moved against the policies they once promoted. That doesn't exactly sound like a success story, does it? 3) Marijuana is terrible for your mental health: Marijuana may even be WORSE than cigarettes. At least cigarettes don't peel points off of your IQ. A recent Northwestern University study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become. In its own report arguing against marijuana legalization, the American Medical Association said: \\\"Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders.\\\" So, there's a good reason most habitual marijuana users come off as stupid. The drug is making them stupider, even when they're not high. You really want your kids on that? 4) Marijuana is terrible for your physical health: How bad is marijuana for you? It's even more toxic than cigarette smoke. Regular users are hit with devastating lung problems as much as 20 years earlier than smokers. Even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility and it has a terrible impact on the babies of women who smoke including \\\"birth defects, mental abnormalities and increased risk of leukemia in children.\\\" If your standard is, \\\"Well, it's better for you than Meth or Crack,\\\" that's true, but you're deluding yourself if you think pot is anything other than absolutely horrible for your health. 5) The drug decimates many people's lives: Movies portray potheads as harmless, fun-loving people who spend their time giggling and munching Cheetos, but they don't show these people when they're flunking out of school, losing their jobs, frustrated because they can't concentrate or losing the love of their lives because they just don't want to be with a pot smoking loser anymore. Even in the limited number of studies that are out there, the numbers are stark. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. ...Students who use marijuana have lower grades and are less likely to get into college than nonsmokers. They simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize information compared to those who do not use these substances. It's bad enough that we already lose so many Americans to cigarettes, alcoholism, and drunken driving. Do we really want to endorse the loss of millions more potentially productive Americans via Marijuana? Do we move on from there to Crack, Heroin or Meth? Some people would say, “If they want to do it, great, then it's no business of ours.” But, you can also bet that those same people will be complaining about all the junkies and welfare cases that will be created by the policy they endorsed. So, ask yourself a few key questions. Is legalizing Marijuana going to make this a better country or a worse one? Would you want to live in a neighborhood filled with people who regularly smoke marijuana? Would you want your kids regularly smoking pot? Now is the time to think about it because although it's easy to thoughtlessly legalize a drug like marijuana, when things go predictably wrong down the road, it will be a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than people seem to think.\\\" [1]Sources:[1] https://calmusa.org...;[2] http://www.celebstoner.com...;(Just to cite a couple of the many examples that this article cited).\",\n \"Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states\\nThe matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as \\\"a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant\\\" and \\\"a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared.\\\" Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as \\\"a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive.\\\" [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that \\\"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.\\\"[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual\\\"s right to care for him or herself\\\"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...\",\n \"Medical Marijuana\\nMedical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.\",\n \"Marijuana should become legalised\\nSorry for the wait, and here are my arguments. A) Marijuana affects one of your most important organs—the brain. Studies have shown that this drug affects the blood flow to the brain, which may explain why cannabis users have trouble with memory or thinking [1] [2]. Researches studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers. \\\"The marijuana users volunteered to participate in an inpatient program and abstained from marijuana use for a month.\\\" \\\"Blood flow in the brain was analyzed at the beginning of the study and at the end of the month for the marijuana users. Researchers found blood flow was significantly higher in marijuana users than in nonusers, both at the beginning and at the end of the study.\\\" Thus, it is evident from the study that marijuana not only negatively affects your brain; these negative effects linger within your brain even after a month (this is not that all surprising, considering cannabis has nearly 400 chemicals inside it). In other words, even after you have stopped using marijuana, your blood flow is still altered, which can lead to trouble thinking or remembering things. Furthermore, this study also revealed that cannabis causes high levels of pulsatility index (PI). \\\"The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes,\\\" says researcher Ronald Herning. B) Marijuana also causes several detrimental medical effects to one's health (both short-term and long-term). This includes slowed reaction time, distorted sense of time, anxiety, depression, and lower levels of sperm count and quality (in men). Other symptoms include weakening of the immune system, limiting the brain's capacity to retrieve and store information, damage to the brain's memory functions (including math and verbal skills), increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack, and loss of motivation and/or interest in everyday activities [3] [4]. These side affects in turn lead to things such as car accidents (if driving after having smoked marijuana), trouble learning, lowered grades, shoddy work, and possibly even a heart attack. In addition, cannabis is addictive, despite what pot smokers may tell you. I do not mean physically addictive, but rather psychologically addictive [3]. However, it is also possible that marijuana is physically addictive. Some symptoms of withdrawal from pot may include aggression, anxiety, and a depressed mood. C) Cannabis is even more dangerous when used by the young population, whose minds are still developing. Studies have shown that various risky behaviors such as gambling, drinking, fighting, steroid use, and smoking cigarettes were all associated with higher risk for marijuana [5]. Self-harm behaviors were also associated with marijuana use. By legalizing marijuana, the government would be exposing our young population (this includes students, children, etc.) even more than before to this drug. D) Now, marijuana alone is obviously detrimental to one's health (as shown above); however, it gets even worse when mixed with other drugs. For example, if I were to mix marijuana with cocaine and smoke it, then the effects on my health would be much worse than before. By legalizing this drug, the government would be allowing the people to mix marijuana with other drugs, causing the danger upon one's health to increase significantly. Pro's Case- Marijuana is dangerous My opponent: \\\"So, quite simply, if Marijuana is less dangerous than other legalised products, then it should be legalised.\\\" This statement is not true. Simply because another drug that is legalized does not make it okay to legalize another less dangerous drug. Marijuana, as I have shown, is clearly detrimental to one's health (especially mixed with other drugs); thus, all the government would be doing is exposing the people to even more harmful drugs, and their justification would be that it is less harmful when compared to some of the most dangerous drugs on the planet (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, etc.). They should be more focused on getting rid of alcohol and tobacco instead of simply increasing the danger to society. It is never wise to fight fire with fire, or in this case, add fire to even more fire. Furthermore, my opponent's source [4] simply leads to a page stating, \\\"Lead Poisoning Due to Adulterated Marijuana,\\\" which simply supports me as it shows the dangers of marijuana. It is because of this that I would like to ask where my opponent has gotten the following information he put in R2: \\\"But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.\\\" Moreover, while cannabis may not increase the risk of lung cancer, it may increase the risk of testicular cancer. \\\"The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence.\\\" [6] Therefore, it is evident that cannabis may also cause testicular cancer, which is another health risk (out of many) that this drug causes. Is there any danger at all? My opponent: \\\"The legalisation of pure marijuana is what I am advocating.\\\" Actually, my opponent is advocating the legislation of marijuana and not just pure marijuana, as was agreed upon in the first round. In addition, pure marijuana is still harmful (as I have previously shown). Afterward, my opponent posts more arguments in my favor. Please note that my opponent is advocating cannabis with lead in it, and that lead is extremely harmful to one's health as Pro has proved for me. Is this really something that you want to be smoking? Do you wish to smoke something that has detrimental effects that are (as Pro puts it), \\\"life long and irreversible?\\\" If it ain't broke, don't fix it Here my opponent attempts to show that legalizing marijuana we will increase our own economic situation; however, I can just as easily show examples where legalization did not work. For example, the Netherlands was having second thoughts on legalizing marijuana. [7] [8] \\\"After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds.\\\" [7] \\\"Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who \\\"complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht's small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems.\\\" [7] As you can see, while Panama may have been successful in their legalization, the Netherlands certainly were not. This is most likely due to different variables that are changing throughout the country. In other words, the legalization of marijuana alone is not enough to help or hurt a country, because other variables could affect the outcome (after all, it took Panama five years to get positive results, and many different things can change in five years). Conclusion- From the evidence that I have provided, it is clear that marijuana is harmful to human health due to a plethora of detrimental side affects and is even more dangerous when mixed with drugs already legalized; thus, it should stay banned. [1] http://alcoholism.about.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.cesar.umd.edu... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.news-medical.net... [7] http://www.justthinktwice.com... [8] http://alcoholism.about.com....\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Medical Marijuana The FDA recently reported that there were not scientific studies that support The use of medical marijuana. If a physician prescribes it in an area where it isn't even legal, they could lose their licenses. There wouldn't be a problem with the FDA is there wasn't an issue with using medical marijuana as a treatment.","marijuana should be legal man.... Hello BongMan, Thank you for starting this debate. I would like to use my round to ask you a few questions. 1. Do you think marijuana should be legal for medical purposes or for pleasure? 2. What are your thoughts on marijuana's harmful effects? 3. Should there be an age limit on who can take the drug? 4. Should there be a limit on how much of the drug one can buy? 5. Please, please do not be offended, but I realized that you are apart of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in order for me to have a full debate with you, I would like to ask you if that is what you fully believe, and if you really do live in Jamaica. Thank you, I look forward to your response.","The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US Ok i see you point but the drug is already being used for medical help in all the states and yes they're would be less crimes but there would be more wrecks and stealing from places because the drug gets people high and there for its shouldn't be legalized i await my opponents responses eagerly also","Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide That is indeed unfortunate. Get well soon! PS : Maybe some marijuana might be good medicine for you at this time. Heuheuheh.","Should Marijuana Be Legalized I think marijuana should be legalized because it is NOT addictive and in some states of America that have legalized it e.g. Colorado the crime has gone down in some cities buy at least 10%. also for people with anorexia the munchies would be a good idea to get them to start eating.","Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US I disagree with the statement that smoking marijuana kills brain cells. Long term and even daily marijuana users don't have any permanent brain damage. Marijuana can be prescribed for effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, I doubt doctors would put their patients brain cells in any danger. Studies show that there is almost no impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Holding your breath, drinking, jumping, all of these things damage brain cells but aren't illegal. There has been so much effort and money put into the prohibition of marijuana but has failed to control the use and production. The government tried to use penalties to prevent marijuana use but statistics show that marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually. It is unfair that marijuana is illegal because it is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol; marijuana overdose is almost 99% impossible. Marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco and there are cold hard facts to prove it. Marijuana should be legalized.","Marijuana ought to be legalized My position on your proposition is that to legalise marijuana without reviewing and changing all other existing policies with regard to all other commonly used drugs (including legal drugs, like alcohol and tobacco) would lead to undesirable health and economic outcomes. Before legalising marijuana or any other currently illicit drug, the community must have an informed debate and an agreed educational strategy about the consequences of abuse and possible addiction to these drugs in people who are genetically predisposed. Public education, preventative measures and addiction treatment facilities should be agreed upon and funded by public health services prior to the change of law you are proposing. I am aware that there are many good reasons to legally treat marijuana on a par with alcohol and I am happy to respond to any of those you may want to put forward to make your case. However, the cost of the legalised drug of alcohol to individual and public health (and the economy!) is enormous in our present societies. This in itself should be sufficient reason to not just legalise marijuana without first creating a social and political environment which reduces the health and economic impacts of drug use by people who are at risk (for example young people and people predisposed to drug abuse and addiction).","Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.","Marijuana ought to be legalized My position is that marijuana ought to be legalized. I will let my opponent make the opening arguments but i ask that he/she forfeits the last round. Thank you to whoever accepts.","Should marijuana be legal Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest.","Medical marijuana dispensaries Marijuana can have a beneficial mind-altering effect if used right","Legalization of Marijuana I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized. It is nothing less than a drug. Legalizing it increases the likelihood that it will be used. Marijuana is not good for the body or for society. Legalization would endanger the economy, and it would be foolish to do so.","Medical marijuana should not be allowed just to grow state revenue Alberto Torrico. \"Opinion: Medical marijuana needs closer regulation.\" Mercury News. November 15th, 2009: \"a decision to legalize a powerful drug in order to balance our budget would be a critical mistake and would jeopardize public safety. Even in the midst of this fiscal crisis, we need to focus on providing safe medicine, not just grasping for any available revenue source.\"","Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Thanks, you bring up some very good points - however, I would like to remind you that this debate discusses the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug. As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse. In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits. It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to \"promote the general Welfare\" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as \"the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens\" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who \"promise it doesn't affect them.\" Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :) Citations: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...","marijuana should be legalized Although i do agree with the use of it for cancer reasons, that should probably be the only legal reason for people to use marijuana. it has been said that all forms of marijuana are mind altering drugs, which impair your way of thinking, as well as imparing your driving skills. Studies have shown that high levels of marijuana consumption have led to potential health problems. The legalization of this drug will only increase the use in youths. Marijuana has been shown to not increase levels of learning and has been shown to impair the ways of learning. young children are still growing and by using this drug it will stop the way the brain should typically develop.","Alternatives to marijuana should be used to ease the terminally ill Gabriel Nahas, MD, PhD. Editorial, Wall Street Journal. Mar. 1997: \"[T]he use of marijuana [for the terminally ill] can no longer be considered a therapeutic intervention but one of several procedures used to ease the ebbing of life of the terminally ill. But for this purpose doctors should prescribe antiemetic and analgesic therapies of proven efficacy, rather than marijuana smoking. This therapeutic course is not based on bureaucratic absolutism, political correctness, or reflexive ideology - but on scientific knowledge and the humane practice of medicine.\"[22]","Marijuana should be completely legalized I will be Pro. Marijuana should be legalized without any restrictions other than the ones placed on tobacco or alcohol. The reasons are: A) By criminalizing Marijuana, people who are not a danger to society are incarcerated, taking their freedom from them as well as costing the state (and therefore the tax payers) money. B) Marijuana has tremendous health benefits, on a variety of different conditions including but not limited to: Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, migraines, insomnia, lack of appetite, nausea, and any kind of physical pain. C) No death has been produced by a marijuana overdose, and no long-term effects have been found if consumed by people with fully developed brains. D) Even if there was a risk in using marijuana which may not have been discovered yet, that does not justify keeping it illegal, as the state is limiting an adults right to do what they want with their body. You could hurt yourself with pretty much any legal item/substance that you can think of, and that does not mean that every object or substance in existence should be illegal.","Marajuana should be legal okay, my opening statement was a bit rocky, but marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, for example people who have glaucoma, symptoms of cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other medical conditions. There have been no documented cases where a person has overdosed on marijuana. There are side effects that come with smoking the drug, but so does other drugs. Cymbalta--a drug used to treat depression--has sideffects that include possible convulsions, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, and feelings of contemplating suicide. Every drug has may have sideffects, but to jump to the conclusion that marijuana makes you loopy and causes you to die is farfetched.","Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications Philip Denney, MD, co-founder of a medical cannabis evaluation practice, stated the following in his Nov. 17, 2005, testimony to the Arkansas legislature in support of House Bill 1303: \"An Act to Permit the Medical Use of Marijuana\": \"I have found in my study of these patients that cannabis is really a safe, effective and non-toxic alternative to many standard medications.\"","should marijuana be legalized for recreational use many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is \"THC\" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.","Medical Marijuana should be a legal option My opponent chastised me for mentioning other drugs when the debate is on marijuana, but I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in our drug laws. Furthermore, he goes on to cite the smoking baby, and since he is addicted to regular cigarettes and not marijuana that too would not be relevant to the debate at hand. \"Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. \" Yes, and the same such warnings may apply to marijuana for legal reasons, that does not prove that it is so much worse for you. \"Same thing with drinking alcohol and then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. \" Yes, exactly, that just reinforces what I was saying that you responded to. Any time we discuss drugs we must weigh the benefits against the risks. There are some in the medical community who promote marijuana as an effective treatment option. [1] You mention how marijuana is not for everyone, and it is not the first choice. That may be true, however, that does not mean it is not a choice at all. It works for some people where other drugs have failed. If you are concerned with the risk of abuse, dispensaries can have the same oversight as any pharmacy. [2] According to many experts, if a lethal dose of marijuana exists it is almost impossible to attain, as opposed to other drugs which can be quite easy to Overdose on even accidentally. [3] Thanks again to my opponent and I would look forward to his conclusion. 1 . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... 2 . http://www.lansingstatejournal.com... 3 . http://www.druglibrary.org...","Legalization of Marijuana I think Marijuana should be legal. I would love to discuss this topic with someone, but I would rather talk about this when someone has accepted this debate!!","Legalization of Marijuana I do not agree with you in the slightest. I get it, some people abuse this substance, but it isn't just a drug, it's a healer in a way. There is many people that consider caffeine a drug, yet lots of people do it each day and aren't judged for it, so why should something that can ease your pain not be legalized? Marijuana is not something that I would personally do, not because it's illegal, but because I just don't feel like it and I don't want to. There is some drug problems in the United States, and they aren't going away any time soon. Marijuana isn't bad for your body, as it is a medical substance. Doctors wouldn't prescribe something that they don't know will help or not, they prescribe it because they do know that it will help with your mind and also whatever condition you have. I've had marijuana in my life my whole life, a few times for personal use, and my mom. She did marijuana for her cancer, and now she is completely fine, mostly because marijuana made her not worried about it. For once she wasn't worried about dying from something that she thought would kill her. So yes, it should be legalized, not just in the United States, but the whole world in my opinion.","Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana is good in the following ways 1. Weight loss most people who smoke it are skinnier. The researchers at the University of Nebraska, the Harvard School of Public Health, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center analyzed data to find that current pot smokers had a smaller waist circumference than those who had never used marijuana. 2.Diabetes. One of the most common risk factors for diabetes is insulin resistance and the researchers found that the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), may help the body take in insulin. 3.Low levels of depression. those who consume marijuana occasionally or even daily have lower levels of depressive symptoms than those who have never tried marijuana. 4.Consuming marijuana can limit neurological damage after a stroke or trauma. 5.The THC in marijuana binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to relieve pain. Marijuana's pain relieving ability makes it beneficial to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, as the THC binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to alleviate pain. 6.It's not news that marijuana helps cancer patients when they undergo chemotherapy, but a 2012 study found that marijuana can play a role in curing aggressive cancer.","Marijuana should be legalized First of all the debate specifically says and I quote \"Marijuana should be legalized. \" So I am not talking about all drugs just Marijuana. Also Marijuana is already legal in Colorado. So to be more specific I meant it should be legal in all of the states. Medical Marijuana is already legal so it would be pointless in arguing that topic. So my biggest argument is going to say that why not? Marijuana does not cause harm to like any other drug. As a matter as a matter of fact many do not even consider it a drug myself included. Alcohol is more dangerous than Marijuana. The CDC (Control Disease Center) has these statistics- 37,000 annual U. S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado (. http://archive.saferchoice.org...) they do not even have a chart of deaths from Marijuana. People have their rights and should be able to have something that will not harm them or anyone else. This the United States of America the place where people can do want they want. So I say let them do it.","Non Medical Use of Marijuana SHOULD Be Legal in the United States Non medical use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because of it's history, it's positive impact on people, and because it will make the state a better place. Marijuana has many uses, not just to be smoked, but to make cloth and paper. Think about how using marijuana for these purposes would benefit this state as a whole. Marijuana could be a BILLION dollar industry, if just that. We could get out of debt as a state because of the uses that marijuana has. Marijuana also has SUCH a positive impact on people; medically and non medically. Non medically, marijuana stimulates the brain and relaxes the body. It allows people to think about things more heavily and opens the mindset of many people. Medically, marijuana stops seizures, kills cancer cells, treats glaucoma, helps control and regulate blood sugar, has the ability to prevent suicide, has the ability to lower violence, and helps police to focus on the ACTUAL criminals. So why isn't marijuana legal if it does all of these good things? The answer, the government. Now, trust me, I'm not one of those people who believe that the government wants to destroy humanity or are \"coming after us\", just bear with me. Think about it; if marijuana has the ability to cure cancer, treat glaucoma, regulate blood sugar, prevent suicide, stop seizures, and lower depression... what would that mean for the billion dollar medical industry? That's right, they would lose money. If marijuana has the ability to lower depression (which causes people to act out in violent nature), steer people away from other and more dangerous drugs, lower violence in communities and states... what would that mean for the billion dollar prison industry? They would also loose money. As well as the tobacco industry. And this is why the government doesn't want marijuana to be legal. If people aren't suffering, and dying, and needing to go to the hospital, and if people aren't committing crimes, and SELLING MARIJUANA, then those industries would lose LOTS of money. And of course, our selfish, money-hungry government does not want that.","Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should not be legalized. Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug. You stated that \"it isn't as harmful,\" however it still is harmful to one's body. Simply because it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol, it is still a drug that the body should not be in-taking.","Marijuana should be legalized If marijuana is legalized it won't change the fact that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are also dangerous. Instead of legalizing marijuana since its less hazardous, those other drugs should be controlled. We should not look toward legalizing marijuana to benefit our economy, it is a drug! Any type of legalization of a drug is not the best decision. The fact that it can harm your health should not be ignored simply to help the government and its debt. The use of marijuana has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. All three of these outcomes will directly affect the life of the smoker which can be avoided. Therefore, the legalization of this drug would lead to an even higher number of people with these disorders.","Medicle Marijuana It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use. Now it's not like somebody says hey lets go to the doctor and get some drugs. No marijuana can just be given away. The doctor has to have a valid reason as to why they need to use marijuana. And, the doctor has to notify his advisors of his actions. Therefore marijuana should be used for medical uses.","Drug Legalization (Marijuana) I will argue that Marijuana legalization is a good choice.","Medical Marijuana Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...","Medical Marijuana It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.","Medical Marijuana There are 2 strong arguments that throughly justify the legalization of medical marijuana: Support 1: Restricting the use of medical marijuana violates the needs of individuals. People who need this as medicine are barred from their treatment. Support 2: Medical marijuana has extensively proven in a myriad of cases to be a treatment including for cancer and neuro-disorders. (See www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/). Giving legal access would be the same as allowing a cancer patient to be given treatment. Why would one deny treatment to another? Sources: www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/ norml.org/component/zoo/.../recent-research-on-medical-marijuana","marijuana legalization I think marijuana should be legalized. It's safer than alcohol.","Marijuana Marijuana should be legalized because there is nothing wrong with it. I mean come on you would have to smoke 20 times your body weight for a week before you overdosed and then you would just die of smoke inhalation . Round 1 Your Opinions Round 2 Debate/Argument Round 3 Proof","Medical marijuana dispensaries Marijuana is an effective medicine and treatment for many illnesses","Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.","Marijuana should be legal My bad I read the post wrong. I believe medical marijuana is a legitamate way of treating a sickness (within reason of corse. ) But marijuana that anyone can receive would catastrophic in that anyone could receive marijuana even younger children. Meaning that if my theoretical son Timmy wanted some pot to smoke with the cool kids and I happened to be in possession of it he could easily get it. Of course fast too he might be able to receive some from other children. And the transfer of marijuana would be legal too, as the government would have no way of determining who can receive marijuana whether the person is responsible or not. Also I never said alcohol nor cigerets should be aloud. In all reality they should be illegal as well but that's a debate for later","Marijuana should be legalized Now then let the games begin. A. You say that medicinal marijuana can CAN be a safe and effective treatment. For some very serious medical conditions that are a huge concern for our society. Of the conditions you did state, i will say you are valid on 1 of them. That being pain, as to my knowledge Marijuana does act as sort of a pain killer, except without the high of some of the other pain killers out there like vicodin. But that goes to say how much pain would be required to needed for one to get said medicinal marijuana. To go on, one could simply fake pain to abuse the system, trust if it is legalized that would happen in great numbers. Furthermore, I would like to know how that is if you can show it to me if not it is of no matter, how it can help treat such illnesses such as AIDS, Cancer, epilepsy, etc. B. Now also how would you ensure that it is actually getting to those who need it and it is not just going to any random person who can present a card or something saying they have legal access to the marijuana? I say without at least a proper way of ensuring it gets to the right people Marijuana should remain illegal. Since there has also been no proven way to ensure all laws are enforced, since there is always a loophole or an exception of some kind. No one can justify making marijuana legal since it could and would be abused by a variety of people. No matter what the medicinal trials show about the drug, and how it MAY benefit people. Legalizing Marijuana would only fuel the rampant illegal use of it in our nation. It would give people a reason to then abuse the system and obtain marijuana for their own personal and selfish needs. It could also cause a lot of corruption in the form of a pharmacist selling said Marijuana on the streets or, in the back for a huge profit of their own personal gain.","Marijuana should be at disposal for all. Marijuana should not be legalized for disposal of all. I say this because we would have a world of crazy people running around delirious trying to do harmful things. We have enough issues already with DUI. We can't enable people to do worse. Marijuana has long-term and short-term effects. It's addictive, it's not a one time thing. However, Marijuana should be medically legalized in every state and only be at disposal to medical professionals. If it helps people, let's do it. If it hurts people, let's trash it. Marijuana does both. Therefore, should be legal, but managed by qualified professionals. Thank You!","Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should be legal. It isn't as harmful as many legal things. More people die from the use of alcohol and drive under the influence of it. Marijuana isn't addictive like alcohol and it is impossible to overdose on this \"drug\".","Medical Marijuana If marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day, then why should it not be legalized for medical purposes? Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. Professor Lester Grinspoon, MD, from the Harvard Medical School, comments \"I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana.\" Every drug has side effects, and most have potential risks. However, no other drug can do exactly what medical marijuana would do for a patient. Therefore, it should be legalized in order to benefit those suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.","Medical Marijuana 1st off Medical Marijuana can treat Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...) Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barly use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org...) Not only that, but 800,000 people each year are arrested for possesion only and if legalized it will decrease the jail birds and it will decrease drug cartel crime in america. Already 17 US states have legalized the drug, meaning that these states have found use in the drug. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... Your move! http://www.youtube.com...","Marijuana should be legalized Now then, i feel we can agree on all point made that both Vicodin and marijuana both have their major drawbacks, and uses for the greater good. We both agree that they can be picked up from a drug dealer, which is a very dangerous act of doing due to the countless risks that come with obtaining anything from a drug dealer. Also i am all for giving doctors and researchers the opportunity to research medical uses for marijuana, however this does not mean we need to legalize the use of it just yet. Sure we run trials and such to see if the effects are lasting and what not. But this doesn't mean we have to legalize marijuana. It just means we should research into it. So again i resend my point on which i stand and i feel is the moral and ethical choice that must be voted upon by our peers. However i will explain it. Point A. The research of medical marijuana is fine and i am all for it but it does not mean it should be legalized, it can just be researched there is a difference between the two. Point B. Legalizing Medical Marijuana can open a Pandora's Box of sorts. For starters, access to the drug will become more prevalent in our society then it already is. Final Point. Plainly put there is not urgency in legalizing marijuana, even for medical uses. If anything we should merely research the effects it has on illnesses.","allow weed i know some who have used it and they are smarter than most people i know now do i think it should stay illegal no i don't but marijuana helps with alot of things including pain and depression","weed I think that marijuana is an option that should be available to those that choose to use it. Just as one could go to a coffee shop for an energy boost, You should be able to go buy some weed to calm yourself down, Or just for fun if you want. Also, Comparing marijuana to grass isn't really fair. You wouldn't add grass to a pasta dish, But you probably would add basil. All plants aren't the same, Is my point.","Should Marijuana be nationally legalized? (US) I would just like to point out that my opponent has broken the format of the debate, for which I urge the readers to take off points for. But nevertheless, I will stick to the format. I will first begin by pointing out the benefits of the medicinal use of marijuana. Medicinal Marijuana has been PROVEN to prevent glaucoma, which is an eye disease that damages the optic nerve resulting in a loss of vision. According to a 2003 study, Marijuana can help control epileptic seizures. In the 2003 study, Robert J. DeLorenzo gave marijuana to epileptic rats. The effect rid the rats of seizures for 10 hours. If a similar affect can be used on humans it would be revolutionary for epilepsy treatment. It is also important to mention that it has also been SHOWN that a chemical that is found in marijuana can stop the spread of cancer. This chemical is called cannabidiol. Cannabidiol stops cancer by turning off a gene called Id-1. Cancer cells make more copius of the Id-1 gene than non-cancer cells, and helps them spread throughout the body. There are much more benefits and use to medicinal marijuana than I have just stated, these are just among two of the many benefits that medicinal marijuana can offer to patients at a hospital. I also believe that recreational marijuana should be nationally legalized in the United States. Marijuana is statistically the safest drug one can use. Alcohol is currently legal in the United States for anyone over the age of 21. Alcohol is much more harmful to the body than marijuana is to the body in large amounts. Also, the cost of alcohol abuse is a greater cost to society than marijuana abuse.","Medical Marijuana ======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.","Medical Marijuana Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.","Medical marijuana dispensaries Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use.","Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills I believe that for terminal diseases such as cancer Medical Marijuana should be used as much as possible in place of man made drugs","Marijuana legalization Marijuana should be legalized. It has many uses and there are no recorded deaths directly related to marijuana. 440,000 die annually from cigarettes and 75,000 people die from alcohol each year in the united states alone. Yet both of these drugs are legal.","Legalizing medical marijuana is not legalizing recreational use Bernard Rimland, PhD, Founder of the Autism Society of America (ASA). \"Medical Marijuana: a Valuable Treatment for Autism?\" Autism Research Review International. 2003: \"It is important to keep in mind the distinction between legalizing marijuana for medical uses, which has been done in some states, and 'recreational' drug use which is illegal throughout the U.S.","Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use Marijuana should not be legalized for medicinal use, just because it relieves pain. The drug in mention might relieve pain, but also would harm the body, and cause more threatening side effects to the patient. Since marijuana does do harm to the body while relieving pain, patients should instead try pain killers that do less damage to the body. On another note By legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, the percentage of illegal marijuana trade would go up drastically. Drug dealers could possibly fake illnesses to get said drug, or people with illnesses that requires said drug would get the drug and sell excess drugs to another party. examples of drug dealing through legalization of medicinally used marijuana Party A fakes a disease to get the drug Party A then sells drug to party B another example Party A has ms and gets subscribed a marijuana based drug Party A sells marijuana to party B who overdoses, and dies. Party A goes to a different hospital/pharmacy and gets a different prescription for a pain killer 1 month later party A refills his prescription for the marijuana based drug and sells to party C who has negative side effects cycle repeats through the whole **** alphabet","Marijuana should be legalized In many states, they have begun to drop the noose that restricts medical marijuana use. In my state of CA you will find more dispensaries then star bucks. . however I think everyone should have this choice, and that it shouldn't be only ok for the terminally ill. I want to argue that this should be the federal standard(legal), and that marijuana has been taboo for so long, based on ignorance and denial. I am (pro) so will be defending and asserting this motion. (con) will argue marijuana should remain and/or be permanently illegal. The way it goes. .. .","Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should be legalized i have 3 arguments why A1- Marijuana Has many health Benefits A2- If used correctly it can help treatments A-3 Alcohol Was Illegal and now it is Legal I am going to touch up on my Arguments now A1- Marijuana has many health Benefits it has many health benefits it know that it can take away cancer cant take away pain A-2 IF used correctly it can help in the treatment If managed correctly is can help over 14 diseases such as Cancer and Alzheimer;s, appetite loss, glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, pain, weight loss, arthritis, dystonia, insomnia, seizures, and tourette's syndrome A-3 Alcohol used to be Illegal and they voted and it is now legal why not legalize marijuana and alcohol has a more dealth tole then Marijuana there were 22,072 related deaths in 2006 for alcohol related. 13,050 more deaths came from alcoholic liver disease. To this day there has not been any recorded credible deaths caused by the effects of marijuana","Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana can treat patients of cancer and AIDs, but it leads to more problems. Andrea Bathwell, who used to be the Deputy Director for the White House once said, \"\"By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them.\" Even if marijuana is used for medical purposes, it leads to addiction and that's why it should not be legalized for treatment.","should marijwana only Be legalized only for Medicinal purposes Marijuana should only be legalized only for medicinal cases and you should not have unless you have a prescription for it because kids and teenagers can easily get there hands on it, they can take it from there parents or another friend or brother who's old enough to have this drug. so that is why I think it should only be legalized for medicinal porpoises only.","Medical Marijuana Scientists and mentally-ill victims of bipolar disorder have independently made the discovery that cannabis can improve this medical condition, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote). Moreover, 30-40% of patients with bipolar disorder are not consistently helped by or CANNOT tolerate standard medications. Marijuana helps terminally ill people to have a better life because smoked marijuana can give rapid relief from great suffering to some patients, quickly improving such patients' comfort and mental outlook. The terminally ill can still maintain their human dignity and suffer less. Legalized marijuana would provide patients with a quality drug to help their pain. This would make the usage of drug controllable, ingredients would be well known and experts would determine the appropriate healing quantity. Legalization for medical purposes is also necessary to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to invest in further research of marijuana's healing properties.","Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.","Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes About this debate:Welcome to my debate. As you can see you and I will be debating whether the legalization of marijuana should be used for medical purposes (only). Not only should marijuana be used to cure cancer, but also various other diseases.Rules: 1. No profanities2. No plagiarism3. Forfeiture causes disqualifications.Rounds: Round #1: Acceptance from opponentRound #2: ArgumentsRound #3: Rebuttals Round #4: Conclusion/Summary","Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. No my opponent is the king of babbling.","Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.","Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.","Marijuana Legalization My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.","Medical marijuana dispensaries Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs","Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.","Marijuana Medicine I accept the challenge! If you allow sick people marijuana as medicine, they may become addicts once they are better, and begin to use it illegally. Marijuana is not medicine, it is a recreational drug, and should remain illegal.","Should Marijuana be legalized I think that Marijuana Should be legalized because it can be used for much more that just medical use. I believe it can be used for things like clothes, string, sowing material and of course medical use. Now I now there are some people out there who would disagree with me and that is fine but i have knee issues and every now and again my knee dislocates do to sporting activities and when I am given morphine and multiple doses to be exact it still isn't enough to ease the pain, I also have other medical issues as well and there some points that I wish had something to ease the pain.","Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.","Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use. Marijuana is the best drug to be put into medical use since it was ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and dependence (addiction) potential. It ranked close to caffeine in the degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only in the degree of intoxication.","Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs The fact that there are alternatives to medical marijuana for many treatments is not necessarily an argument against medical marijuana. It is always important to have many alternatives, largely due to differing personal preferences, beliefs, and physical reactions to different drugs.[15]","Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. NOTICE: This debate is apart of the Revive DDO Debate Competition. RESOLUTION: Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized For Use As Medicine or for Medical Purposes.","Marijuana Legalization Due to the overwhelming evidence of the social and legal benefits, Marijuana should be legalized in both Medical and Recreational fields.","Medical Marijuana should be legal. I was looking at your profile, and i saw that you think that medical marijuana should not be legal. I disagree but i want to know why you believe that medical marijuana is unsuitable to be legal in the us. And a debate will follow. It is currently used to make peoples with diseases better, so i dont see why not.","Medical Marijuana The main problem, is that Medical Marijuana is often used as an excuse for drug addiction. Since legalizing Marijuana allows young children and adults to become possibly addicted to the drug, it is best that we avoid taking risks by making Medical Marijuana illegal. This, however, will not offend one's rights as harmful substances should not be legally administered under any circumstances. This is why, poisonous substances are not allowed to be prescribed legally, as they are often more harmful than helpful. In conclusion, using Marijuana as a therapy or medicine is highly dangerous as there are more than effective ways to treat symptoms. Legalizing this drug, will only be overall counterproductive to a patient's physical and mental health.","Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.","Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. I will be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes' while he shall be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should be legal for medial purposes. As he has already stated the rules and procedures, I see no reason to say any more in round 1. I patiently await his first argument in round 2.","Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.","Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. Millions of Americans smoke marijuana both for recreational uses and also medicinal uses. Whoever accepts this debate must justify why these people are criminals and also disprove Marijuana's use of medicine. With the economy in the tank why wouldn't marijuana be considered a viable stimulus to a sputtering economy. This is all I'll say for now and to whoever trys to disprove me good luck.","Medical Cannabis I completely disagree with making the decision to make marijuana a legal medication. Yes, it does have many benefits as a medical drug. However this can also be labeled as a mind controlling substance. There are different types of cannabis and not all strains are actually used for medical purposes. I believe marijuana should remain under strict watch among doctors, distributors and health professionals. I must also add the criminal and violence aspect of this as well. U.S citizens aren't out causing voilence over tylenol or aspirins. But there are infact doing so over this cannabis, as it is my literal definition of a \"drug\". I would not stand firm and call this a \"medicine\" or \"medication\".","Should pot be legalized My opponent concedes that marijuana can have medical benefits. The fact that people use marijuana to get high in no way shows that it should not be legalized. Other drugs can be used to \"get high\", however their beneficial effects allow them to stay legal. English Syllogism 1. Drugs that have more medical benefits than medical costs should be legal.2. Marijuana is one such drugC. Therefore, Marijuana should be legal. Classical Syllogistic Translation 1. All B is L 2. m is B. C. Therefore, m is L.","Medical Marijuana Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.","Marijuana Legalization I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway.","Legality of Marijuana That is exactly why medicinal marijuana is available for medical use. But recreationaly, I don't think it will ever be legalized here.","Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. So far during this debate my opponent has not been able to disprove or argue my resolution in any way. The resolution should win on these three ideas. 1. Over 15 million Americans have used marijuana in the last month. This is a conservative estimate in itself. Over 70 percent of America has tried marijuana at one time. . http://www.nida.nih.gov... 2. Marijuana is a medicine. Many states have adopted medical marijuana laws due to the public outcry of citizens. Marijuana is proven to treat glaucoma, lack of appetite(which greatly benefits aids patients and those who are severely ill), anxiety, depression, nausea, chronic headaches, and back pains. 3. The fact that the economy could greatly benefit from a new sector called the marijuana economy. This will supply tax revenue and new opportunities for young entrepreneurs.","Marijuana ought to be legalized I believe marijuana should be legal ONLY on certain terms. The certain terms being to help with a disease, such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, etc. Now, this marijuana isn't smoked, it's taken orally. It's for cancer patients whom suffer nausea and vomiting; It helps reduce both problems. Some cancerous treatments cause those effects. For epilepsy, it helps reduce stress. For AIDS patients, it helps gain appetite, which allows them to gain weight. Marijuana should only be used medically, whether than to just be using it. People react differently when induced on marijuana -- Some contain themselves, acting mellow...Some act wild and out of control. My real argument is: Marijuana should be used medically, and medically ONLY, because if it were just legal and any one could use it, it would be JUST like if it were illegal. People would still lace it with other drugs and hallucinogens, people would still kill over it, and etc. [What I said in the comments, basically.] I'm in between about it. Allowing it be legal, could be a pro and a con; Along with being illegal, pro and con.","Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Argument: Many doctors agree that marijuana is very beneficial for medical purposes. Diseases like cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and many other mental disorders are all well treated with marijuana. Marijuana is capable of killing pain and helps rise your metabolism. It has been proved that marijuana is better than pain killers. Marijuana has been legalized in 18 states, and in most of them marijuana is less costly than many medical prescriptions that treat pain. Marijuana has been legal during the 1930s-1940s, and later on this medical treatment has been becoming more limited (1).Here is what doctors say about medicinal marijuana:1. 69% of doctors say it can help with specific illnesses.2. 67% it should be an opportunity for many patients.3. 56% agree making it legal throughout the world.4. 50% of doctors agree it should be legal in their state.5. 52% call for making new laws on medical marijuana in their state (2).[1]: http://www.teenink.com...[2]: http://www.medscape.com...","Medical marijuana should be legal Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment.","Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes I accept your argument. This should be interesting.","Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like \"It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months\". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.","Medical Marijuana Should medical marijuana be legal or no?"],"string":"[\n \"Medical Marijuana The FDA recently reported that there were not scientific studies that support The use of medical marijuana. If a physician prescribes it in an area where it isn't even legal, they could lose their licenses. There wouldn't be a problem with the FDA is there wasn't an issue with using medical marijuana as a treatment.\",\n \"marijuana should be legal man.... Hello BongMan, Thank you for starting this debate. I would like to use my round to ask you a few questions. 1. Do you think marijuana should be legal for medical purposes or for pleasure? 2. What are your thoughts on marijuana's harmful effects? 3. Should there be an age limit on who can take the drug? 4. Should there be a limit on how much of the drug one can buy? 5. Please, please do not be offended, but I realized that you are apart of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in order for me to have a full debate with you, I would like to ask you if that is what you fully believe, and if you really do live in Jamaica. Thank you, I look forward to your response.\",\n \"The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US Ok i see you point but the drug is already being used for medical help in all the states and yes they're would be less crimes but there would be more wrecks and stealing from places because the drug gets people high and there for its shouldn't be legalized i await my opponents responses eagerly also\",\n \"Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide That is indeed unfortunate. Get well soon! PS : Maybe some marijuana might be good medicine for you at this time. Heuheuheh.\",\n \"Should Marijuana Be Legalized I think marijuana should be legalized because it is NOT addictive and in some states of America that have legalized it e.g. Colorado the crime has gone down in some cities buy at least 10%. also for people with anorexia the munchies would be a good idea to get them to start eating.\",\n \"Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US I disagree with the statement that smoking marijuana kills brain cells. Long term and even daily marijuana users don't have any permanent brain damage. Marijuana can be prescribed for effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, I doubt doctors would put their patients brain cells in any danger. Studies show that there is almost no impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Holding your breath, drinking, jumping, all of these things damage brain cells but aren't illegal. There has been so much effort and money put into the prohibition of marijuana but has failed to control the use and production. The government tried to use penalties to prevent marijuana use but statistics show that marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually. It is unfair that marijuana is illegal because it is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol; marijuana overdose is almost 99% impossible. Marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco and there are cold hard facts to prove it. Marijuana should be legalized.\",\n \"Marijuana ought to be legalized My position on your proposition is that to legalise marijuana without reviewing and changing all other existing policies with regard to all other commonly used drugs (including legal drugs, like alcohol and tobacco) would lead to undesirable health and economic outcomes. Before legalising marijuana or any other currently illicit drug, the community must have an informed debate and an agreed educational strategy about the consequences of abuse and possible addiction to these drugs in people who are genetically predisposed. Public education, preventative measures and addiction treatment facilities should be agreed upon and funded by public health services prior to the change of law you are proposing. I am aware that there are many good reasons to legally treat marijuana on a par with alcohol and I am happy to respond to any of those you may want to put forward to make your case. However, the cost of the legalised drug of alcohol to individual and public health (and the economy!) is enormous in our present societies. This in itself should be sufficient reason to not just legalise marijuana without first creating a social and political environment which reduces the health and economic impacts of drug use by people who are at risk (for example young people and people predisposed to drug abuse and addiction).\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.\",\n \"Marijuana ought to be legalized My position is that marijuana ought to be legalized. I will let my opponent make the opening arguments but i ask that he/she forfeits the last round. Thank you to whoever accepts.\",\n \"Should marijuana be legal Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest.\",\n \"Medical marijuana dispensaries Marijuana can have a beneficial mind-altering effect if used right\",\n \"Legalization of Marijuana I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized. It is nothing less than a drug. Legalizing it increases the likelihood that it will be used. Marijuana is not good for the body or for society. Legalization would endanger the economy, and it would be foolish to do so.\",\n \"Medical marijuana should not be allowed just to grow state revenue Alberto Torrico. \\\"Opinion: Medical marijuana needs closer regulation.\\\" Mercury News. November 15th, 2009: \\\"a decision to legalize a powerful drug in order to balance our budget would be a critical mistake and would jeopardize public safety. Even in the midst of this fiscal crisis, we need to focus on providing safe medicine, not just grasping for any available revenue source.\\\"\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Thanks, you bring up some very good points - however, I would like to remind you that this debate discusses the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug. As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse. In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits. It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to \\\"promote the general Welfare\\\" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as \\\"the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens\\\" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who \\\"promise it doesn't affect them.\\\" Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :) Citations: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...\",\n \"marijuana should be legalized Although i do agree with the use of it for cancer reasons, that should probably be the only legal reason for people to use marijuana. it has been said that all forms of marijuana are mind altering drugs, which impair your way of thinking, as well as imparing your driving skills. Studies have shown that high levels of marijuana consumption have led to potential health problems. The legalization of this drug will only increase the use in youths. Marijuana has been shown to not increase levels of learning and has been shown to impair the ways of learning. young children are still growing and by using this drug it will stop the way the brain should typically develop.\",\n \"Alternatives to marijuana should be used to ease the terminally ill Gabriel Nahas, MD, PhD. Editorial, Wall Street Journal. Mar. 1997: \\\"[T]he use of marijuana [for the terminally ill] can no longer be considered a therapeutic intervention but one of several procedures used to ease the ebbing of life of the terminally ill. But for this purpose doctors should prescribe antiemetic and analgesic therapies of proven efficacy, rather than marijuana smoking. This therapeutic course is not based on bureaucratic absolutism, political correctness, or reflexive ideology - but on scientific knowledge and the humane practice of medicine.\\\"[22]\",\n \"Marijuana should be completely legalized I will be Pro. Marijuana should be legalized without any restrictions other than the ones placed on tobacco or alcohol. The reasons are: A) By criminalizing Marijuana, people who are not a danger to society are incarcerated, taking their freedom from them as well as costing the state (and therefore the tax payers) money. B) Marijuana has tremendous health benefits, on a variety of different conditions including but not limited to: Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, migraines, insomnia, lack of appetite, nausea, and any kind of physical pain. C) No death has been produced by a marijuana overdose, and no long-term effects have been found if consumed by people with fully developed brains. D) Even if there was a risk in using marijuana which may not have been discovered yet, that does not justify keeping it illegal, as the state is limiting an adults right to do what they want with their body. You could hurt yourself with pretty much any legal item/substance that you can think of, and that does not mean that every object or substance in existence should be illegal.\",\n \"Marajuana should be legal okay, my opening statement was a bit rocky, but marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, for example people who have glaucoma, symptoms of cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other medical conditions. There have been no documented cases where a person has overdosed on marijuana. There are side effects that come with smoking the drug, but so does other drugs. Cymbalta--a drug used to treat depression--has sideffects that include possible convulsions, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, and feelings of contemplating suicide. Every drug has may have sideffects, but to jump to the conclusion that marijuana makes you loopy and causes you to die is farfetched.\",\n \"Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications Philip Denney, MD, co-founder of a medical cannabis evaluation practice, stated the following in his Nov. 17, 2005, testimony to the Arkansas legislature in support of House Bill 1303: \\\"An Act to Permit the Medical Use of Marijuana\\\": \\\"I have found in my study of these patients that cannabis is really a safe, effective and non-toxic alternative to many standard medications.\\\"\",\n \"should marijuana be legalized for recreational use many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is \\\"THC\\\" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana should be a legal option My opponent chastised me for mentioning other drugs when the debate is on marijuana, but I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in our drug laws. Furthermore, he goes on to cite the smoking baby, and since he is addicted to regular cigarettes and not marijuana that too would not be relevant to the debate at hand. \\\"Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. \\\" Yes, and the same such warnings may apply to marijuana for legal reasons, that does not prove that it is so much worse for you. \\\"Same thing with drinking alcohol and then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. \\\" Yes, exactly, that just reinforces what I was saying that you responded to. Any time we discuss drugs we must weigh the benefits against the risks. There are some in the medical community who promote marijuana as an effective treatment option. [1] You mention how marijuana is not for everyone, and it is not the first choice. That may be true, however, that does not mean it is not a choice at all. It works for some people where other drugs have failed. If you are concerned with the risk of abuse, dispensaries can have the same oversight as any pharmacy. [2] According to many experts, if a lethal dose of marijuana exists it is almost impossible to attain, as opposed to other drugs which can be quite easy to Overdose on even accidentally. [3] Thanks again to my opponent and I would look forward to his conclusion. 1 . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... 2 . http://www.lansingstatejournal.com... 3 . http://www.druglibrary.org...\",\n \"Legalization of Marijuana I think Marijuana should be legal. I would love to discuss this topic with someone, but I would rather talk about this when someone has accepted this debate!!\",\n \"Legalization of Marijuana I do not agree with you in the slightest. I get it, some people abuse this substance, but it isn't just a drug, it's a healer in a way. There is many people that consider caffeine a drug, yet lots of people do it each day and aren't judged for it, so why should something that can ease your pain not be legalized? Marijuana is not something that I would personally do, not because it's illegal, but because I just don't feel like it and I don't want to. There is some drug problems in the United States, and they aren't going away any time soon. Marijuana isn't bad for your body, as it is a medical substance. Doctors wouldn't prescribe something that they don't know will help or not, they prescribe it because they do know that it will help with your mind and also whatever condition you have. I've had marijuana in my life my whole life, a few times for personal use, and my mom. She did marijuana for her cancer, and now she is completely fine, mostly because marijuana made her not worried about it. For once she wasn't worried about dying from something that she thought would kill her. So yes, it should be legalized, not just in the United States, but the whole world in my opinion.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana is good in the following ways 1. Weight loss most people who smoke it are skinnier. The researchers at the University of Nebraska, the Harvard School of Public Health, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center analyzed data to find that current pot smokers had a smaller waist circumference than those who had never used marijuana. 2.Diabetes. One of the most common risk factors for diabetes is insulin resistance and the researchers found that the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), may help the body take in insulin. 3.Low levels of depression. those who consume marijuana occasionally or even daily have lower levels of depressive symptoms than those who have never tried marijuana. 4.Consuming marijuana can limit neurological damage after a stroke or trauma. 5.The THC in marijuana binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to relieve pain. Marijuana's pain relieving ability makes it beneficial to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, as the THC binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to alleviate pain. 6.It's not news that marijuana helps cancer patients when they undergo chemotherapy, but a 2012 study found that marijuana can play a role in curing aggressive cancer.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized First of all the debate specifically says and I quote \\\"Marijuana should be legalized. \\\" So I am not talking about all drugs just Marijuana. Also Marijuana is already legal in Colorado. So to be more specific I meant it should be legal in all of the states. Medical Marijuana is already legal so it would be pointless in arguing that topic. So my biggest argument is going to say that why not? Marijuana does not cause harm to like any other drug. As a matter as a matter of fact many do not even consider it a drug myself included. Alcohol is more dangerous than Marijuana. The CDC (Control Disease Center) has these statistics- 37,000 annual U. S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado (. http://archive.saferchoice.org...) they do not even have a chart of deaths from Marijuana. People have their rights and should be able to have something that will not harm them or anyone else. This the United States of America the place where people can do want they want. So I say let them do it.\",\n \"Non Medical Use of Marijuana SHOULD Be Legal in the United States Non medical use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because of it's history, it's positive impact on people, and because it will make the state a better place. Marijuana has many uses, not just to be smoked, but to make cloth and paper. Think about how using marijuana for these purposes would benefit this state as a whole. Marijuana could be a BILLION dollar industry, if just that. We could get out of debt as a state because of the uses that marijuana has. Marijuana also has SUCH a positive impact on people; medically and non medically. Non medically, marijuana stimulates the brain and relaxes the body. It allows people to think about things more heavily and opens the mindset of many people. Medically, marijuana stops seizures, kills cancer cells, treats glaucoma, helps control and regulate blood sugar, has the ability to prevent suicide, has the ability to lower violence, and helps police to focus on the ACTUAL criminals. So why isn't marijuana legal if it does all of these good things? The answer, the government. Now, trust me, I'm not one of those people who believe that the government wants to destroy humanity or are \\\"coming after us\\\", just bear with me. Think about it; if marijuana has the ability to cure cancer, treat glaucoma, regulate blood sugar, prevent suicide, stop seizures, and lower depression... what would that mean for the billion dollar medical industry? That's right, they would lose money. If marijuana has the ability to lower depression (which causes people to act out in violent nature), steer people away from other and more dangerous drugs, lower violence in communities and states... what would that mean for the billion dollar prison industry? They would also loose money. As well as the tobacco industry. And this is why the government doesn't want marijuana to be legal. If people aren't suffering, and dying, and needing to go to the hospital, and if people aren't committing crimes, and SELLING MARIJUANA, then those industries would lose LOTS of money. And of course, our selfish, money-hungry government does not want that.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should not be legalized. Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug. You stated that \\\"it isn't as harmful,\\\" however it still is harmful to one's body. Simply because it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol, it is still a drug that the body should not be in-taking.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized If marijuana is legalized it won't change the fact that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are also dangerous. Instead of legalizing marijuana since its less hazardous, those other drugs should be controlled. We should not look toward legalizing marijuana to benefit our economy, it is a drug! Any type of legalization of a drug is not the best decision. The fact that it can harm your health should not be ignored simply to help the government and its debt. The use of marijuana has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. All three of these outcomes will directly affect the life of the smoker which can be avoided. Therefore, the legalization of this drug would lead to an even higher number of people with these disorders.\",\n \"Medicle Marijuana It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use. Now it's not like somebody says hey lets go to the doctor and get some drugs. No marijuana can just be given away. The doctor has to have a valid reason as to why they need to use marijuana. And, the doctor has to notify his advisors of his actions. Therefore marijuana should be used for medical uses.\",\n \"Drug Legalization (Marijuana) I will argue that Marijuana legalization is a good choice.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...\",\n \"Medical Marijuana It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana There are 2 strong arguments that throughly justify the legalization of medical marijuana: Support 1: Restricting the use of medical marijuana violates the needs of individuals. People who need this as medicine are barred from their treatment. Support 2: Medical marijuana has extensively proven in a myriad of cases to be a treatment including for cancer and neuro-disorders. (See www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/). Giving legal access would be the same as allowing a cancer patient to be given treatment. Why would one deny treatment to another? Sources: www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/ norml.org/component/zoo/.../recent-research-on-medical-marijuana\",\n \"marijuana legalization I think marijuana should be legalized. It's safer than alcohol.\",\n \"Marijuana Marijuana should be legalized because there is nothing wrong with it. I mean come on you would have to smoke 20 times your body weight for a week before you overdosed and then you would just die of smoke inhalation . Round 1 Your Opinions Round 2 Debate/Argument Round 3 Proof\",\n \"Medical marijuana dispensaries Marijuana is an effective medicine and treatment for many illnesses\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legal My bad I read the post wrong. I believe medical marijuana is a legitamate way of treating a sickness (within reason of corse. ) But marijuana that anyone can receive would catastrophic in that anyone could receive marijuana even younger children. Meaning that if my theoretical son Timmy wanted some pot to smoke with the cool kids and I happened to be in possession of it he could easily get it. Of course fast too he might be able to receive some from other children. And the transfer of marijuana would be legal too, as the government would have no way of determining who can receive marijuana whether the person is responsible or not. Also I never said alcohol nor cigerets should be aloud. In all reality they should be illegal as well but that's a debate for later\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized Now then let the games begin. A. You say that medicinal marijuana can CAN be a safe and effective treatment. For some very serious medical conditions that are a huge concern for our society. Of the conditions you did state, i will say you are valid on 1 of them. That being pain, as to my knowledge Marijuana does act as sort of a pain killer, except without the high of some of the other pain killers out there like vicodin. But that goes to say how much pain would be required to needed for one to get said medicinal marijuana. To go on, one could simply fake pain to abuse the system, trust if it is legalized that would happen in great numbers. Furthermore, I would like to know how that is if you can show it to me if not it is of no matter, how it can help treat such illnesses such as AIDS, Cancer, epilepsy, etc. B. Now also how would you ensure that it is actually getting to those who need it and it is not just going to any random person who can present a card or something saying they have legal access to the marijuana? I say without at least a proper way of ensuring it gets to the right people Marijuana should remain illegal. Since there has also been no proven way to ensure all laws are enforced, since there is always a loophole or an exception of some kind. No one can justify making marijuana legal since it could and would be abused by a variety of people. No matter what the medicinal trials show about the drug, and how it MAY benefit people. Legalizing Marijuana would only fuel the rampant illegal use of it in our nation. It would give people a reason to then abuse the system and obtain marijuana for their own personal and selfish needs. It could also cause a lot of corruption in the form of a pharmacist selling said Marijuana on the streets or, in the back for a huge profit of their own personal gain.\",\n \"Marijuana should be at disposal for all. Marijuana should not be legalized for disposal of all. I say this because we would have a world of crazy people running around delirious trying to do harmful things. We have enough issues already with DUI. We can't enable people to do worse. Marijuana has long-term and short-term effects. It's addictive, it's not a one time thing. However, Marijuana should be medically legalized in every state and only be at disposal to medical professionals. If it helps people, let's do it. If it hurts people, let's trash it. Marijuana does both. Therefore, should be legal, but managed by qualified professionals. Thank You!\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should be legal. It isn't as harmful as many legal things. More people die from the use of alcohol and drive under the influence of it. Marijuana isn't addictive like alcohol and it is impossible to overdose on this \\\"drug\\\".\",\n \"Medical Marijuana If marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day, then why should it not be legalized for medical purposes? Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. Professor Lester Grinspoon, MD, from the Harvard Medical School, comments \\\"I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana.\\\" Every drug has side effects, and most have potential risks. However, no other drug can do exactly what medical marijuana would do for a patient. Therefore, it should be legalized in order to benefit those suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana 1st off Medical Marijuana can treat Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...) Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barly use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org...) Not only that, but 800,000 people each year are arrested for possesion only and if legalized it will decrease the jail birds and it will decrease drug cartel crime in america. Already 17 US states have legalized the drug, meaning that these states have found use in the drug. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... Your move! http://www.youtube.com...\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized Now then, i feel we can agree on all point made that both Vicodin and marijuana both have their major drawbacks, and uses for the greater good. We both agree that they can be picked up from a drug dealer, which is a very dangerous act of doing due to the countless risks that come with obtaining anything from a drug dealer. Also i am all for giving doctors and researchers the opportunity to research medical uses for marijuana, however this does not mean we need to legalize the use of it just yet. Sure we run trials and such to see if the effects are lasting and what not. But this doesn't mean we have to legalize marijuana. It just means we should research into it. So again i resend my point on which i stand and i feel is the moral and ethical choice that must be voted upon by our peers. However i will explain it. Point A. The research of medical marijuana is fine and i am all for it but it does not mean it should be legalized, it can just be researched there is a difference between the two. Point B. Legalizing Medical Marijuana can open a Pandora's Box of sorts. For starters, access to the drug will become more prevalent in our society then it already is. Final Point. Plainly put there is not urgency in legalizing marijuana, even for medical uses. If anything we should merely research the effects it has on illnesses.\",\n \"allow weed i know some who have used it and they are smarter than most people i know now do i think it should stay illegal no i don't but marijuana helps with alot of things including pain and depression\",\n \"weed I think that marijuana is an option that should be available to those that choose to use it. Just as one could go to a coffee shop for an energy boost, You should be able to go buy some weed to calm yourself down, Or just for fun if you want. Also, Comparing marijuana to grass isn't really fair. You wouldn't add grass to a pasta dish, But you probably would add basil. All plants aren't the same, Is my point.\",\n \"Should Marijuana be nationally legalized? (US) I would just like to point out that my opponent has broken the format of the debate, for which I urge the readers to take off points for. But nevertheless, I will stick to the format. I will first begin by pointing out the benefits of the medicinal use of marijuana. Medicinal Marijuana has been PROVEN to prevent glaucoma, which is an eye disease that damages the optic nerve resulting in a loss of vision. According to a 2003 study, Marijuana can help control epileptic seizures. In the 2003 study, Robert J. DeLorenzo gave marijuana to epileptic rats. The effect rid the rats of seizures for 10 hours. If a similar affect can be used on humans it would be revolutionary for epilepsy treatment. It is also important to mention that it has also been SHOWN that a chemical that is found in marijuana can stop the spread of cancer. This chemical is called cannabidiol. Cannabidiol stops cancer by turning off a gene called Id-1. Cancer cells make more copius of the Id-1 gene than non-cancer cells, and helps them spread throughout the body. There are much more benefits and use to medicinal marijuana than I have just stated, these are just among two of the many benefits that medicinal marijuana can offer to patients at a hospital. I also believe that recreational marijuana should be nationally legalized in the United States. Marijuana is statistically the safest drug one can use. Alcohol is currently legal in the United States for anyone over the age of 21. Alcohol is much more harmful to the body than marijuana is to the body in large amounts. Also, the cost of alcohol abuse is a greater cost to society than marijuana abuse.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana ======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.\",\n \"Medical marijuana dispensaries Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills I believe that for terminal diseases such as cancer Medical Marijuana should be used as much as possible in place of man made drugs\",\n \"Marijuana legalization Marijuana should be legalized. It has many uses and there are no recorded deaths directly related to marijuana. 440,000 die annually from cigarettes and 75,000 people die from alcohol each year in the united states alone. Yet both of these drugs are legal.\",\n \"Legalizing medical marijuana is not legalizing recreational use Bernard Rimland, PhD, Founder of the Autism Society of America (ASA). \\\"Medical Marijuana: a Valuable Treatment for Autism?\\\" Autism Research Review International. 2003: \\\"It is important to keep in mind the distinction between legalizing marijuana for medical uses, which has been done in some states, and 'recreational' drug use which is illegal throughout the U.S.\",\n \"Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use Marijuana should not be legalized for medicinal use, just because it relieves pain. The drug in mention might relieve pain, but also would harm the body, and cause more threatening side effects to the patient. Since marijuana does do harm to the body while relieving pain, patients should instead try pain killers that do less damage to the body. On another note By legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, the percentage of illegal marijuana trade would go up drastically. Drug dealers could possibly fake illnesses to get said drug, or people with illnesses that requires said drug would get the drug and sell excess drugs to another party. examples of drug dealing through legalization of medicinally used marijuana Party A fakes a disease to get the drug Party A then sells drug to party B another example Party A has ms and gets subscribed a marijuana based drug Party A sells marijuana to party B who overdoses, and dies. Party A goes to a different hospital/pharmacy and gets a different prescription for a pain killer 1 month later party A refills his prescription for the marijuana based drug and sells to party C who has negative side effects cycle repeats through the whole **** alphabet\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized In many states, they have begun to drop the noose that restricts medical marijuana use. In my state of CA you will find more dispensaries then star bucks. . however I think everyone should have this choice, and that it shouldn't be only ok for the terminally ill. I want to argue that this should be the federal standard(legal), and that marijuana has been taboo for so long, based on ignorance and denial. I am (pro) so will be defending and asserting this motion. (con) will argue marijuana should remain and/or be permanently illegal. The way it goes. .. .\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should be legalized i have 3 arguments why A1- Marijuana Has many health Benefits A2- If used correctly it can help treatments A-3 Alcohol Was Illegal and now it is Legal I am going to touch up on my Arguments now A1- Marijuana has many health Benefits it has many health benefits it know that it can take away cancer cant take away pain A-2 IF used correctly it can help in the treatment If managed correctly is can help over 14 diseases such as Cancer and Alzheimer;s, appetite loss, glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, pain, weight loss, arthritis, dystonia, insomnia, seizures, and tourette's syndrome A-3 Alcohol used to be Illegal and they voted and it is now legal why not legalize marijuana and alcohol has a more dealth tole then Marijuana there were 22,072 related deaths in 2006 for alcohol related. 13,050 more deaths came from alcoholic liver disease. To this day there has not been any recorded credible deaths caused by the effects of marijuana\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana can treat patients of cancer and AIDs, but it leads to more problems. Andrea Bathwell, who used to be the Deputy Director for the White House once said, \\\"\\\"By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them.\\\" Even if marijuana is used for medical purposes, it leads to addiction and that's why it should not be legalized for treatment.\",\n \"should marijwana only Be legalized only for Medicinal purposes Marijuana should only be legalized only for medicinal cases and you should not have unless you have a prescription for it because kids and teenagers can easily get there hands on it, they can take it from there parents or another friend or brother who's old enough to have this drug. so that is why I think it should only be legalized for medicinal porpoises only.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Scientists and mentally-ill victims of bipolar disorder have independently made the discovery that cannabis can improve this medical condition, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote). Moreover, 30-40% of patients with bipolar disorder are not consistently helped by or CANNOT tolerate standard medications. Marijuana helps terminally ill people to have a better life because smoked marijuana can give rapid relief from great suffering to some patients, quickly improving such patients' comfort and mental outlook. The terminally ill can still maintain their human dignity and suffer less. Legalized marijuana would provide patients with a quality drug to help their pain. This would make the usage of drug controllable, ingredients would be well known and experts would determine the appropriate healing quantity. Legalization for medical purposes is also necessary to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to invest in further research of marijuana's healing properties.\",\n \"Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.\",\n \"Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes About this debate:Welcome to my debate. As you can see you and I will be debating whether the legalization of marijuana should be used for medical purposes (only). Not only should marijuana be used to cure cancer, but also various other diseases.Rules: 1. No profanities2. No plagiarism3. Forfeiture causes disqualifications.Rounds: Round #1: Acceptance from opponentRound #2: ArgumentsRound #3: Rebuttals Round #4: Conclusion/Summary\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. No my opponent is the king of babbling.\",\n \"Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.\",\n \"Marijuana Legalization My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.\",\n \"Medical marijuana dispensaries Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.\",\n \"Marijuana Medicine I accept the challenge! If you allow sick people marijuana as medicine, they may become addicts once they are better, and begin to use it illegally. Marijuana is not medicine, it is a recreational drug, and should remain illegal.\",\n \"Should Marijuana be legalized I think that Marijuana Should be legalized because it can be used for much more that just medical use. I believe it can be used for things like clothes, string, sowing material and of course medical use. Now I now there are some people out there who would disagree with me and that is fine but i have knee issues and every now and again my knee dislocates do to sporting activities and when I am given morphine and multiple doses to be exact it still isn't enough to ease the pain, I also have other medical issues as well and there some points that I wish had something to ease the pain.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.\",\n \"Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use. Marijuana is the best drug to be put into medical use since it was ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and dependence (addiction) potential. It ranked close to caffeine in the degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only in the degree of intoxication.\",\n \"Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs The fact that there are alternatives to medical marijuana for many treatments is not necessarily an argument against medical marijuana. It is always important to have many alternatives, largely due to differing personal preferences, beliefs, and physical reactions to different drugs.[15]\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. NOTICE: This debate is apart of the Revive DDO Debate Competition. RESOLUTION: Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized For Use As Medicine or for Medical Purposes.\",\n \"Marijuana Legalization Due to the overwhelming evidence of the social and legal benefits, Marijuana should be legalized in both Medical and Recreational fields.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana should be legal. I was looking at your profile, and i saw that you think that medical marijuana should not be legal. I disagree but i want to know why you believe that medical marijuana is unsuitable to be legal in the us. And a debate will follow. It is currently used to make peoples with diseases better, so i dont see why not.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana The main problem, is that Medical Marijuana is often used as an excuse for drug addiction. Since legalizing Marijuana allows young children and adults to become possibly addicted to the drug, it is best that we avoid taking risks by making Medical Marijuana illegal. This, however, will not offend one's rights as harmful substances should not be legally administered under any circumstances. This is why, poisonous substances are not allowed to be prescribed legally, as they are often more harmful than helpful. In conclusion, using Marijuana as a therapy or medicine is highly dangerous as there are more than effective ways to treat symptoms. Legalizing this drug, will only be overall counterproductive to a patient's physical and mental health.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. I will be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes' while he shall be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should be legal for medial purposes. As he has already stated the rules and procedures, I see no reason to say any more in round 1. I patiently await his first argument in round 2.\",\n \"Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. Millions of Americans smoke marijuana both for recreational uses and also medicinal uses. Whoever accepts this debate must justify why these people are criminals and also disprove Marijuana's use of medicine. With the economy in the tank why wouldn't marijuana be considered a viable stimulus to a sputtering economy. This is all I'll say for now and to whoever trys to disprove me good luck.\",\n \"Medical Cannabis I completely disagree with making the decision to make marijuana a legal medication. Yes, it does have many benefits as a medical drug. However this can also be labeled as a mind controlling substance. There are different types of cannabis and not all strains are actually used for medical purposes. I believe marijuana should remain under strict watch among doctors, distributors and health professionals. I must also add the criminal and violence aspect of this as well. U.S citizens aren't out causing voilence over tylenol or aspirins. But there are infact doing so over this cannabis, as it is my literal definition of a \\\"drug\\\". I would not stand firm and call this a \\\"medicine\\\" or \\\"medication\\\".\",\n \"Should pot be legalized My opponent concedes that marijuana can have medical benefits. The fact that people use marijuana to get high in no way shows that it should not be legalized. Other drugs can be used to \\\"get high\\\", however their beneficial effects allow them to stay legal. English Syllogism 1. Drugs that have more medical benefits than medical costs should be legal.2. Marijuana is one such drugC. Therefore, Marijuana should be legal. Classical Syllogistic Translation 1. All B is L 2. m is B. C. Therefore, m is L.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.\",\n \"Marijuana Legalization I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway.\",\n \"Legality of Marijuana That is exactly why medicinal marijuana is available for medical use. But recreationaly, I don't think it will ever be legalized here.\",\n \"Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. So far during this debate my opponent has not been able to disprove or argue my resolution in any way. The resolution should win on these three ideas. 1. Over 15 million Americans have used marijuana in the last month. This is a conservative estimate in itself. Over 70 percent of America has tried marijuana at one time. . http://www.nida.nih.gov... 2. Marijuana is a medicine. Many states have adopted medical marijuana laws due to the public outcry of citizens. Marijuana is proven to treat glaucoma, lack of appetite(which greatly benefits aids patients and those who are severely ill), anxiety, depression, nausea, chronic headaches, and back pains. 3. The fact that the economy could greatly benefit from a new sector called the marijuana economy. This will supply tax revenue and new opportunities for young entrepreneurs.\",\n \"Marijuana ought to be legalized I believe marijuana should be legal ONLY on certain terms. The certain terms being to help with a disease, such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, etc. Now, this marijuana isn't smoked, it's taken orally. It's for cancer patients whom suffer nausea and vomiting; It helps reduce both problems. Some cancerous treatments cause those effects. For epilepsy, it helps reduce stress. For AIDS patients, it helps gain appetite, which allows them to gain weight. Marijuana should only be used medically, whether than to just be using it. People react differently when induced on marijuana -- Some contain themselves, acting mellow...Some act wild and out of control. My real argument is: Marijuana should be used medically, and medically ONLY, because if it were just legal and any one could use it, it would be JUST like if it were illegal. People would still lace it with other drugs and hallucinogens, people would still kill over it, and etc. [What I said in the comments, basically.] I'm in between about it. Allowing it be legal, could be a pro and a con; Along with being illegal, pro and con.\",\n \"Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Argument: Many doctors agree that marijuana is very beneficial for medical purposes. Diseases like cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and many other mental disorders are all well treated with marijuana. Marijuana is capable of killing pain and helps rise your metabolism. It has been proved that marijuana is better than pain killers. Marijuana has been legalized in 18 states, and in most of them marijuana is less costly than many medical prescriptions that treat pain. Marijuana has been legal during the 1930s-1940s, and later on this medical treatment has been becoming more limited (1).Here is what doctors say about medicinal marijuana:1. 69% of doctors say it can help with specific illnesses.2. 67% it should be an opportunity for many patients.3. 56% agree making it legal throughout the world.4. 50% of doctors agree it should be legal in their state.5. 52% call for making new laws on medical marijuana in their state (2).[1]: http://www.teenink.com...[2]: http://www.medscape.com...\",\n \"Medical marijuana should be legal Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment.\",\n \"Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes I accept your argument. This should be interesting.\",\n \"Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like \\\"It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months\\\". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.\",\n \"Medical Marijuana Should medical marijuana be legal or no?\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":37,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should the federal minimum wage be increased?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\nSummary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON’s arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con’s arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON’s example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says “Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities”, which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional “example” to try to sway the reader about an important question. “Will an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?”One source referenced by CON is “Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!” which concludes that “The efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists.” [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON’s claim. Here is what they say “In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.” [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: “As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.” [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON’s (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON’s “rebuttals” - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card’s study - CON says the study didn’t show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I’m sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I’m glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I’ll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states “I'll admit I'm a bit confused now.”CON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON’s arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com...","The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\nIn round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) “Provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.” [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage “one of the best antipoverty programs we have.”. [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: “poverty guidelines” and “poverty thresholds” [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in “48 Contiguous States and D.C.” is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: “Last year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - “I’d argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session — and probably in the four years I’ve been health commissioner” [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study “in APHA’s American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth.” [3] A “higher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid — the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share.” There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living “Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.” CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes “we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state.” [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca...","A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy\nI believe your incorrect. The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007. The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Many states also have minimum wage laws. In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages also, you say that only employers can only pay so little, because then people would not work. They will eventually bring it up until people work. So if they get rid of it, then it would have no point in keeping the law. Also, we wont do what China did because China made that mistake and as we see that they messed up their economy, but we dont have too.","Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour\nMyth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\" Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\" Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour � before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour � before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a �last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired� scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.","Raising the minimum wage is a negative action for the citizens of The United States of America\nI am disappointed that you chosen not to post an argument twice in a row now, but nevertheless I will still finish out the debate. In conclusion I believe that inflation is a major problem that stands in the way of raising the minimum wage, raising the minimum wage past $8.50 for at least the next 10 years is unnecessary, and that citizens in The United States of America already live \"rich people\" lives and that raising the minimum wage would only increase unemployment. I believe that this was a very amusing debate and that you were a very intellectual opponent, although I was not joyed with you forfeiting rounds 3 and 4.","The US economy is in good shape\nAnd you have a good point. With minimum wage, you can't win for losing. Both ends of the spectrum seem to have a bad result. But as stated earlier, raising it will take many people's jobs as they may be fired or the business may be shut down. I think it is better for someone to make a fair amount of money compared to having no job and making no money. America has made a lot of jobs. According to CNN, America has made over 1,000,000 jobs in 2015 alone. And 280,000 jobs in May 2015 (http://money.cnn.com...).Yes, I do not agree with most of what our current administration does and usually look at opposite ends of what our President does, but I must say that this job growth is impressive. I am glad I accepted this debate! You too had very excellent points. Thank you for giving me a good debate!","On balance, a minimum wage is detrimental\nIm kind of new so here's my stuffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 1. Minimum wage helps people in the way that they know that they wont live like the chikdren in china with 2 pennies per hour. (Can I bring up this china thing in the debate against you?) 2. Minimum wage helps people so that if they are paid under the $7 or so they can tell a law person (Police officer) and have them arrest the man and then the person will get all the money they would've received if they were working at minimum wage. 3. Minimum wage is the bare minimum and is very low no-one should think of going under a very low price, its like I give you an inch and you take a mile.","Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to\nThis round I will focus on the economic and sociological affects that this will have on our nation. Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [1]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [2]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [12] This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [13] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future. \"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. \" [14]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [3]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [4]. The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. [5] Contention 2: Inflation Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. [6] You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired, this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. [7] \"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. \" [15] Here we can see that when the minimum wage is raised that we will see the costs will not only eliminate jobs as I have shown in my previous contention, but the burden will be placed on consumers and this harms the average household as they now have to pay more. Not more as in numerical value, but the adjusted income which takes into affect what then occurs after the raising of the minimum wage. You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. [8][9] Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. [10]According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. [11] People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [16]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [17] Sources in the Comments Section.","Public Labor Unions Are Beneficial to Society\nI. Labor EfficiencyI. i. Worker's Contentment My opponent is basically trying to say that labor unions are beneficial because they gain collective bargaining rights to the individual worker, and that this makes them happier and more productive. However, this falls apart quickly. One, labor unions are extremely undemocratic. In this startling statistic: \"After all, less than 10 percent of America’s current union members have voted to have a union in their workplace—in many cases the union was already established and the worker had to join as a condition of employment. \"[1] If workers want to leave this environment: \"Moreover, most union constitutions consider any attempt by a member to secede from the union—including on an individual basis—a punishable offense that can result in steep fines and even termination of employment. \"[1] Therefore, unions are undemocratic and do not necessarily protect the wants of the worker. Second, labor unions reward for membership, not hard work. Not only does this encourage sloth, but this also is unfair to all the hardworking workers out there. Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies. [2] But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees. [3][4]Finally and most importantly, if unions put strains on workers, there is a more viable option for employers:\"Recently, Boeing was sued by the National Labor Relations Board because the company tried to move factories from the heavily unionized state of Washington to South Carolina, a right-to-work state. In this economic environment, unions aren't protecting their workers against evil corporations. Instead, they are protecting them from the droves of unemployed citizens looking for work. Boeing has no moral obligation to keep jobs in the U. S. If the government tries to restrict Boeing's flow of capital, Boeing can just as easily take the jobs to China. In a global economy, a state that allows powerful private-sector unions will lose jobs and experience slow economic growth. \"[5]I already stated in Round 2 that labor unions cause unemployment, and I just reaffirmed that unions tend to be unfair in wage distribution. This certainly does not promote happiness among workers. I. ii. Working Time \". .. Labor unions promote laziness and apathy. Laziness and apathy cause businesses to go bankrupt. \"[6]Labor unions tend to promote laziness (note I already explained why earlier), and wasted hours shouldn't count as worked hours:\"As a result of the high wage rates, employers can afford to hire fewer workers; as a result of curtailed production, employers need fewer workers. Thus, one group of workers obtains unjustifiably high wages at the expense of other workers who are unable to find jobs at all. \"[7] The same thing applies. Unions also tend to increase the amount of strikes and lockdowns. [8] \"Besides raising compensation costs, unions reduce government efficiency in other ways. Unions tend to protect poorly performing workers, they often push for larger staffing levels than required, and they discourage the use of volunteers in government activities. Further, they tend to resist the introduction of new technologies and they create a more rule-laden workplace. In the private sector, businesses can mitigate such union-caused inefficiencies. Unfortunately, public-sector managers have little incentive or flexibility to make such changes. A final type of inefficiency created by public-sector unions is the cost of strikes. \"[8] This is also a hinderance on total work time and especially on potential work time (i. e. time that could have been spent on business expansion and R&D that is now wasted). I ask my opponent, is there any evidence to his claims? II. Benefits to Societal Values and EconomyII. i. Societal Values I have already countered most of this (especially the part about employment), but I will touch on my opponent's claims that unions give workers rights and protects them (note I have already countered some of this in I. i. ). \"It was the economic self-interest of employers, that led them to raise wages and shorten working hours – not the pressure of labor unions. The eight-hour day was established in most American industries long before unions acquired any significant size or economic power. \"[7]\"The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the \"Industrial Revolution,\" blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. \"[9]It has not really been the unions that have helped workers' plights. Capitalism has given the workers the rights they deserve. Also, \"As a result of allegedly “pro-labor” legislation and of the monopolistic power that labor unions enjoy, unemployed workers are not free to compete in the labor market by offering their services for less than the prevailing wage rates; employers are not free to hire them. In the case of strikes, if unemployed workers attempted to obtain the jobs vacated by union strikers, by offering to work for a lower wage, they often would be subjected to threats and physical violence at the hands of union members. These facts are as notorious as they are evaded in most current discussions of the unemployment problem – particularly by government officials. \"[7]II. ii. Economic BenefitsOn marginal productivity: \"Further ambiguity is occasioned by Allen's (1984a) finding that absenteeism is at least 30% higher among union worker. \"[10] \"As a consequence, productivity growth tends to be slower in unionized firms and industries. Increased management opposition to unions, and declining union coverage and employment within most sectors of the U. S. economy, appear to be predictable responses to the relatively poor performance of highly unionized companies during the 1970s. \"[10] Unions lower productivity. On tariffs: \". .. the underlying truth about protectionist tariffs is that they aid domestic producers who've failed to meet the needs of domestic consumers. \"[11] Tariffs are bad, so the fact that unions are encouraging them is bad in itself. Finally, my opponent brings up two graphs that show the \"popularity\" of labor unions. Not only does my opponent commit an Ad Populum fallacy, it's also wrong; it's old. Look at this graph: [12] This newer graph shows 20% declines in union approval. Therefore, the public seems to be split on them. Sources:[1]: . http://www.forbes.com...[2]: Freeman, \"Union Wage Practices and Wage Dispersion Within Establishments\"[3]: David Card, \"The Effect of Unions on the Structure of Wages: A Longitudinal Analysis,\" Econometrica, Vol. 64, No. 4 (July 1996), pp. 957-979[4]: . http://www.heritage.org...[5]: . http://www.alligator.org...[6]: . http://www.broowaha.com...[7]: . http://www.nathanielbranden.com...[8]: . http://www.cato.org...[9]: . http://mises.org...[10]: Addison, John T. Hirsch, Barry T. , \"Union Effects on Productivity, Profits, and Growth - Has the Long Run Arrived? \"[11]: . http://www.forbes.com...[12]: . http://www.gallup.com...","Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy\nI wish him well and I know he will offer me a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy. It will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it used to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below); however, in excess of 85.5% of these workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase, 9 million of whom are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Cosco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\" [5], as have executives of GAP [12]. 85% of small businesses already pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservatives estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1]. [1] . http://cbo.gov...[2] . http://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] . http://www.epi.org...; [4] . http://www.epi.org...;[5] . http://www.mybanktracker.com...;[6] . http://www.bls.gov...;[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://www.dol.gov...[9] . http://news.yahoo.com...[10] . http://www.bls.gov...[11] . http://www.foxnews.com...[12] . http://www.whitehouse.gov...","Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy\nI wish her well and I know she will present me with a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy; I will also be arguing that any proposed minimum wage hike should be indexed to inflation, to allow it to rise with the increasing cost of living. A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it use to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage would directly benefit 21.4% of the worforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below). However, more than 85.5% of all minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% of federal minimum wage earners work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase; 9 million of these workers are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Costco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\" [5]; executives of GAP have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as well [12]. Already a full 85% of small businesses pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservative estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1].2 out of 3 Americans Support Raising the Minimum WageFinally, a large majority of Americans approve of raising the federal minimum wage. As inflation continues to increase and as wealthy employers increasingly keep more of their profits and distribute less to their employees, widening the income gap, Americans are recognizing the need to increase the federal minimum wage! A recent Wall Street Journal/CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour [13][14]; some polls show even greater support for hiking the federal minimum wage [4]. [1] (. http://cbo.gov...)[2] (. http://aspe.hhs.gov...)[3] (. http://www.epi.org...)[4] (. http://www.epi.org...)[5] (. http://www.mybanktracker.com...)[6] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[7] (. http://www.pewresearch.org...)[8] (. http://www.dol.gov...)[9] (. http://news.yahoo.com...)[10] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[11] (. http://www.foxnews.com...)[12] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...)[13] (. http://www.cnn.com...)[14] (. http://online.wsj.com...)","Minimum wage should be increased in the US.\nThe minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.","Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy\nIn ROUND 2 my opponent makes several points--including accusing the U.S. Federal Reserve of forcing inflation to benefit the U.S. economy. She also accuses this federal organization of \"crook[ing] the books\" to make the numbers it reports look good to the American people. This second specific point is an allegation of wild conspiracy and I consider it irrelevant to the debate; however, she does use this argument to indicate that inflation is actually higher than what is reported, because of alterations to the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is computed since the early 1970s [1]. (My opponent is actually wrong. Excluding the prices of fuel and food from the CPI has been the way the U.S. Federal Reserve has been computing this parameter for decades now--not beginning in 2009, as she claims [2].)I want to point out that if inflation is actually higher than what the U.S. Federal Reserve is reporting, than this should motivate us even more to hike the minimum wage and index it to inflation! This means that the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is even less than what the U.S. Labor Department is already reporting--and it's reporting a significant decrease in the value of the minimum wage over the last four decades in real terms with great worry [3]. (However, the inflation rate as reported is accurate; my opponent is in fact mistaken about the way the CPI is traditionally computed since the 1970s [2].)My opponent also claims that worker output should decide \"pay scales in a real economy\". I will demonstrate why she's correct, and why the 20% increase in worker productivity observed over this last decade should correspond with an increase in the federal minimum wage [4].I will demonstrate this and other reasons for hiking the federal minimum wage in this ROUND.Inflation has many causes, which is why the Federal Minimum Wage should be Indexed to InflationMy opponent argues that raising the federal minimum wage would be pointless, as inflation would eventually eat the gains caused by increasing the minimum wage. And on this point she is moderately right; however, inflation has many causes, as economists point out, and it's a healthy economic trend in any growing economy--as long as it stays within limits [5]. Inflation is caused when demand for a product or service outstrips supply, which causes prices to go up; it can also be caused when new popular technology is introduced--some brand names demand higher prices; but it can also be caused by the depletion of natural resources, by natural disasters, by an increase in production costs, by the deregulation of banks, by government regulation and taxation, by business monopolies, by the expansion of the money supply, and various other reasons [5]. Inflation is natural and unavoidable in any economy. But too much of it can present problems, which is why the federal government tries to regulate it wherever it can [5]. Increasing wages can also create inflation if a business passes on the wage increase to consumers, but this doesn't always happen [6]. Recently, inflation has caused even pay raises among middle class workers to be fruitless, as the modest pay increases simply aren't enough to deal with the deleterious effects of inflation, especially as the income gap grows between well-to-do employers, who are increasingly keeping more of their profits, and all other wage earners [7][4]. As I demonstrated in ROUND 2, the nation's wealthiest Americans are generating income comfortably exceeding the rate of inflation; the middle class has seen either stagnant wage growth or negative wage growth when accounting for the effect; the lower classes have seen the worse decline in income over this last decade [4]. Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would eliminate the accumulated deleterious effects of inflation over the years for low wage earners; linking (or \"indexing\") it to inflation would ensure the effects are prevented in the future.Four states--Florida, Oregon, Washington, Vermont--have already indexed their state minimum wage to inflation, and Minnesota is currently proposing to do so [8]. After raising the state minimum wage and indexing, the state of Washington saw no negative impact on employment some initially feared would be there [9]. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and then having it adjusted every year to keep pace with the rising cost of living [10]. It is a congressional bill President Obama endorses and continues to endorse [11], particularly in light of the recent executive order he enacted which hiked the federal minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10 [12].Since 2000, worker productivity is up 20%In ROUND 2, my opponent claims that worker productivity should decide their pay wages. I whole-heartedly agree! That's why I endorse raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Since 2000 worker productivity has risen 20%, even while median hourly wages among all workers have increased by only 3% [4]. Even more astounding is that since 2003, median hourly wages among all workers have not increased at all--zero increase in hourly wages--while the income of the nation's richest 5% have increased by 9% [4]! The nation's top 1% of earners have seen their incomes rise by 31.4% since 2009 [13]!This trend is frightening. While the nation's workers have seen their productivity rise, their income has not grown at all; yet the income of the nation's top 5% of earners continues to surge upward [4][5], widening the income gap. When the effects of inflation are incorporated, middle-class workers have seen their incomes stagnant while lower-class workers have seen the value of their wages depreciate, contributing to an uptick in poverty [4][14].Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the \"poverty threshold\" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [15][19]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the \"povery guidelines\" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as \"living in poverty\". The \"poverty guidelines\" are in actuality simplified versions of the \"poverty thresholds\" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [19]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as \"living in poverty\", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [17].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [15]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [15]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [15].The congressional budget office (CBO) projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [18]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn’t let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [14].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [13]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [13].(Note: R2 = Round 2; S# = Source number)[1] (http://www.bankrate.com...)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] S8, R2[4] S3, R2[5] (http://useconomy.about.com...)[6] (http://www.wisegeek.com...)[7] (http://www.washingtonpost.com...)[8] (http://www.ehow.com...)[9] (http://seattletimes.com...)[10] (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...)[11] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[12] S11, R2[13] S5, R2[14] S4, R2[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[16] (http://www.worldhunger.org...)[17] (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...)[18] S1, R2[19] S2, R2","The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\nThe current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.","The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\n- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]“In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts.” [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. “In 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry.” [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. “The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.”[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor","The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\nWhy the Federal minimum wage shouldn't be raised to $15.Since this debate is specifically about the Federal minimum wage, my arguments will focus on that. Since I missed a round, I will also provide my rebutalls to my opponents arguments.Cost of LivingThe cost of living varies across many states, and establishing a $15 federal minimum wage would either hurt a state, or overpay it's workers. We can use this tool provided by CNN to analyse this. Say we were to establish a $15 dollar federal minimum wage in place such as Des Moines, then the cost will be different in a state such as New York. For this example I will be using the $10.10 minimum wage, but all you have to do is extrapolate the data to see what will happen if we implement a 15 dollar minimum wage. For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate.\" These changes can be seen if we continue to compare other states. A federal minimum wage is just ineffective, because it's hard to pinpoint the right wage on a federal standpoint. Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities. Many states already have minimum wage laws that are set higher than the federal standard, and it's best if we let them take control of this, because they are accomodate their needs better.Will lead to job lossThink about the following senario. An employer has a worker, who generates him 20 dollars renvenue every hour. The owner pays him 15 dollars/hour, and makes $5 profit every hour. Now, the owner hires another worker, but he only generates 12 dollars revenue every hour. The owner pays him 7 dollars/hour, and generates $5 profit. Now, suppose a 15 dollar minimum wage is implemented, this would effect the owner very much. The worker was only generating 12 dollars, will know be paid 15 dollars for his work. What does that mean? It means the owner is losing money. No owner will want to keep losing potential profit, so he will likely fire the new employee. This is basic supply and demand law. And this According to several studies done by economists, they have come to the conclusion that minimium wage hikes will lead to job loss. This would also be significant since 64% of job creations come from small buisnesses.Here is some more evidence that proves minimum wage constitutes job loss. According to Federal Reserve bank of Chicago, “10 percent increase in the minimum wage lowers low skill employment by 2 to 4 percent and total restaurant employment by 1 to 3 percent.” According to the American Economist, 61% of economists were against the idea of a minimum wage raise. All this evidence indicates that the minimum wage hike is a job killer, and that it shouldn't be increased to $15 especially. Alan Kruger, a economist who once did a study on minimum wage effects in New Jersey, opposed a $15 dollar minimum wage stating a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences.\" Here is a graph showing the rise of teen unemployment after the minimum wage increase. Nearly after every minimum wage increase, unemployment rates have increased. Does very little to help the poorEmperical dates indicates that a minimum wage hike doesn't really effect the poor, because 60% of those in poverty are not even in the workforce. So, this would make it harder for them to get a job, because employers will try to hire those who are most experienced and more equiped for the job, even though the minimum wage job was meant for youngsters to get job experience. \"Research from economists at American University and Cornell University in 2008 showed the many state minimum-wage increases between 2003 and 2007 did nothing to reduce poverty rates. And economists at Ohio University found the federal minimum wage didn’t decrease poverty, and may actually have increased poverty for certain subgroups.\"EITCThe earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. This method is far more feasible as means of reducing poverty than increasing the minimum wage. EITC does not have such detrimental employment effects such as unemployment and outsourcement of job but works the other way around for it really is a subsidy to employers to employ low value labor. Here is a graph showing the wages of employees without their EITC, and with their EITC. As you can see, the EITC boosts wages, and this will help reduce the wage gap between the rich and poor. The best part is, the unemployment disadvantages that minimum wage creates are not present. Other studies also prove that EITC decreases unemployment. Hoynes and Patel also find that the EITC has significantly boosted employment. A $1,000 increase in the credit translates into a 7.3 percentage-point increase in the employment of single mothers. This means that as a result of the boost in 1993, hundreds of thousands of women have entered the workforce. Notable people such as Warren Baffett have said expanding EITC is the right thing to do.ConclusionA $15 dollar minimum wage is not the way to go, because it's ignores the cost of livings by state, increases unemployment, does very little to reduce poverty, and other solutions such as EITC are much more effective.RebutallsFrom reading Pro's arguments, I feel like he is focusing more on the idea of a minimum wage, rather than $15 dollar figure. I'd like to mention the debate wasn't really about that, and Pro is most certainly aware of that, especially since he accepted the debate saying he would argue for a $15 dollar minimum wage.C1: David Card's studyFor Pro's first argument, he says that the Conservative narrtative about minimum wage killing jobs is false, because a study done by David Card and Alan Krueger demostrate that this isn't the case. First we need to look at what their actual study was about. It was comparing the minimum wages of two cities which compared the fast food prices of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's important to note that this study was done by comparing two cities with similar costs of living. Also, the increase did not show any data that the minimum wage was a positive thing, rather there wasn't much of an impact with the unemployment. However, this debate is about a $15 federal minimum wage. So, this example is apples and oranges in many instances, because comparing minimum wage increases among cities is much different than minimum wage increase nationwide. Interesting enough, Alan Kruger himself said he was against the idea of increasing the minimum wage to $15.C2: Price Increases and everything elseI'll admit I'm a bit confused now, because Pro makes some arguments against the minimum wage, which are increased food costs. Not sure how I'll refute this.Pro's arguments about the bias in minimum wage articles, is rather defensive. Even if those arguments are biased, it doesn't give any reason why the $15 dollar minimum wage should be there. This is more of a rebutall than an argument.Regarding the link of the Department of Labor, many of those arguments are just cherrypicked examples of some studies which show a net positive in minimum wage. For example, the first rebutall by the DOL shows that hundreds of economists agreed with Obama, but these don't represent every ecnonmist. Most economists are against the idea of the minimum wage, so this is just a cherrypicked argument. Also, Obama's proposal is not a $15 increase, but a $10.10 increase. There is not gurantee all those economists would still support a $15 minimum wage.Finally, Pro's gives an argument states that gradually increasing it would give us good data to draw conclusions, but that isn't reallly an argument for an increase. That's like saying we should just ban all guns, so we can see how it effects the crime rate, but ignoring all the colleral damage caused by it! Minimum wage increases will increase unemployment as I have shown, and is ineffective in reducing poverty.My sourceshttp://www.degruyter.com...http://wheniwork.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://reason.com...http://www.republicanreader.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.vox.com...http://www.degruyter.com... https://www.epionline.org... http://www.krusekronicle.com...;","On the authoritative minimum wage.\nAssumptions: (1) That this debate is structured around the current going-ons of society ; (2) The United States can be the subject of this debate ; (3) This debate can refer to both a State imposed as well as a National minimum wage, as the Instigator has not stated otherwise. Introduction: My opponent has laid out a very nice argument for you obviously taken straight from an Economics class, as my opponent is correct in stating that the minimum wage, on paper, is economically unsound. However, many times other factors in a particular culture or society have implications that affect the way a system is supposed to work. For example, the current economic recession, the issue of outsourcing , America's problem with millions of undocumented workers, etc., have all factored into my reasoning as to why I am PRO in this debate. Contentions: 1. Abuse of the Labor Market A) Opponents of the minimum wage claim that its existence costs the labor market thousands of jobs, i.e. a business will hire less staff members because they can only budget a certain amount of money towards wages. This is an example of something that sounds good on paper, but in reality simply isn't true. The fact of the matter is, a business needs a certain amount of employees to run effectively. Legally, an employee can only work 40 hours a week without having to be granted Overtime compensation. Thus, it's highly unlikely that a manager would work his employees round the clock. Instead, he's going to hire the proper amount of people in order for his business to excel and be efficient. While maybe a FEW jobs may be lost, the likelihood of this is not nearly enough for you to concede to abolishing the minimum wage entirely. B) Without a minimum wage, management can abuse their workers by offering extremely low compensation. Sure the response to this is, \"Well nobody would work for a wage that was inappropriate.\" This is complete nonsense. History shows us (see: The Great Depression) that people will work for what's available to them when they are desperate. Imagine if the minimum wage was abolished right now, and every major corporation decided to pay those already making minimum wage just $2/hour. Surely that is unfair and inappropriate in comparison with the overall Cost of Living today. So what would my opponent suggest? Everybody quit their jobs until demand forces employers to pay more? That is not necessarily an accurate response, one because job availability is already so scarce (see: Recession), and two because there are many undocumented workers or foreign workers with little to no skill who would be willing to work for a fraction of what typical Americans would. Thus, employers have the ability to completely abuse the job market. Further, with so many employees out of work or making so much less money, the economy would suffer GREATLY (as people would have no money to spend) and the recession would only get worse. 2. The minimum wage is necessary for many families. A) There are millions of adults who work for minimum wage in this country. These people rely on these jobs (sometimes having two) in order to pay the bills and raise their families. If the minimum wage were abolished, thereby reducing wage rates, surely these adults would be unable to afford basic necessities like homes, clothing , food, etc. Teenagers who don't have any expenses (or have their basic needs met by their parents) would be willing to work for less compensation, because it is not as crucial of an income to them as it would be for adults and adults with families. 3. Abolishing the minimum wage puts an unfair burden on many Americans. A) Unable to take care of themselves, families would be forced to receive government aid like Welfare and Unemployment. In addition to this being a huge kick in the face to many people who WANT to work (for their psychological and social well-being), it also puts a huge drain on tax payers and the economy at large. Those who have usurped the minimum wage paying jobs and who now pay taxes with their very low wages will contribute very little towards taxes. Instead, middle income families (those who don't make minimum wage) will be effected the most. The wealthy will pay very high taxes, it's true, but will not feel the effect as much as the middle class. B) Additionally, inflation would surely occur due to less people being able to be active in the market. Therefore, the rising prices to balance out costs and whatnot would put additional burdens on the middle class. C) On that note, competing nations would not have the same economic burdens, therefore being able to sell their products for less money. This would completely destroy the American economy, and further advance the very real problem of job Outsourcing. 4. The face of politics/tax distribution. A) Obviously, political legislation would have to greatly be revamped and modified in order to sustain the new economic situation. Keeping many people extremely poor while a few (presumably business owners, CEOs, etc.) prosper exponentially can lead to a massive class separation even greater than the one that already exists. This is repressive and counterproductive to American ideals of equality (or rather equal opportunity) and can hinder many advancements that this country can have socially, technologically, etc. B) More taxes going towards helping people survive means less money for social programs, scholarships, research, medical and technological advancements, urban planning , etc. 5. The facts. A) Studies have also shown that higher wages reduce employee turnover, raise productivity, and increase product quality and customer satisfaction. Four out of five small business owners say that a ten percent minimum wage increase would have either a positive effect or no effect on their business. The Fiscal Policy Institute agrees that raising the minimum wage is good for small businesses. As the study says, \"There may be a Henry Ford effect at work here. If you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses.\" [1] B) \"The federal minimum wage increase of 1996/97 was followed by the best low-wage labor market outcomes in decades. When that proposed increase was under discussion, opponents predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase... Instead, the employment rates of the least advantaged workers soared to unprecedented levels, poverty rates fell to historic lows, particularly for minority populations, the least skilled workers, and single mothers. Low wages rose in step with productivity growth for the first time in almost thirty years. Note that I do not claim that the federal minimum wage increase was solely responsible for these outcomes… But Congress should take note: the 1996/97 increase complemented these conditions; it did not preclude them.\" -- Econmist Jared Bernstein [1] Conclusion: Like I said, economically speaking , an imposed minimum wage is non-sensical. However, in consideration with the current times, I think it's safe to say that a minimum wage is not only practical, but necessary. American workers, small businesses, and economists all agree that increasing the minimum wage is good for America. You should too. Sources: [1] http://www.dmiblog.com..."],"string":"[\n \"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\\nSummary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON’s arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con’s arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON’s example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says “Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities”, which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional “example” to try to sway the reader about an important question. “Will an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?”One source referenced by CON is “Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!” which concludes that “The efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists.” [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON’s claim. Here is what they say “In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \\\"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.” [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: “As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.” [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON’s (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON’s “rebuttals” - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card’s study - CON says the study didn’t show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I’m sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I’m glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I’ll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states “I'll admit I'm a bit confused now.”CON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON’s arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com...\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\\nIn round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) “Provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.” [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage “one of the best antipoverty programs we have.”. [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: “poverty guidelines” and “poverty thresholds” [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in “48 Contiguous States and D.C.” is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: “Last year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - “I’d argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session — and probably in the four years I’ve been health commissioner” [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study “in APHA’s American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth.” [3] A “higher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid — the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share.” There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living “Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.” CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes “we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state.” [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca...\",\n \"A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy\\nI believe your incorrect. The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007. The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Many states also have minimum wage laws. In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages also, you say that only employers can only pay so little, because then people would not work. They will eventually bring it up until people work. So if they get rid of it, then it would have no point in keeping the law. Also, we wont do what China did because China made that mistake and as we see that they messed up their economy, but we dont have too.\",\n \"Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour\\nMyth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \\\"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\\\" Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \\\"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\\\" Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour � before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour � before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a �last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired� scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.\",\n \"Raising the minimum wage is a negative action for the citizens of The United States of America\\nI am disappointed that you chosen not to post an argument twice in a row now, but nevertheless I will still finish out the debate. In conclusion I believe that inflation is a major problem that stands in the way of raising the minimum wage, raising the minimum wage past $8.50 for at least the next 10 years is unnecessary, and that citizens in The United States of America already live \\\"rich people\\\" lives and that raising the minimum wage would only increase unemployment. I believe that this was a very amusing debate and that you were a very intellectual opponent, although I was not joyed with you forfeiting rounds 3 and 4.\",\n \"The US economy is in good shape\\nAnd you have a good point. With minimum wage, you can't win for losing. Both ends of the spectrum seem to have a bad result. But as stated earlier, raising it will take many people's jobs as they may be fired or the business may be shut down. I think it is better for someone to make a fair amount of money compared to having no job and making no money. America has made a lot of jobs. According to CNN, America has made over 1,000,000 jobs in 2015 alone. And 280,000 jobs in May 2015 (http://money.cnn.com...).Yes, I do not agree with most of what our current administration does and usually look at opposite ends of what our President does, but I must say that this job growth is impressive. I am glad I accepted this debate! You too had very excellent points. Thank you for giving me a good debate!\",\n \"On balance, a minimum wage is detrimental\\nIm kind of new so here's my stuffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 1. Minimum wage helps people in the way that they know that they wont live like the chikdren in china with 2 pennies per hour. (Can I bring up this china thing in the debate against you?) 2. Minimum wage helps people so that if they are paid under the $7 or so they can tell a law person (Police officer) and have them arrest the man and then the person will get all the money they would've received if they were working at minimum wage. 3. Minimum wage is the bare minimum and is very low no-one should think of going under a very low price, its like I give you an inch and you take a mile.\",\n \"Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to\\nThis round I will focus on the economic and sociological affects that this will have on our nation. Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [1]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [2]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [12] This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [13] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future. \\\"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. \\\" [14]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [3]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [4]. The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. [5] Contention 2: Inflation Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. [6] You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired, this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. [7] \\\"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. \\\" [15] Here we can see that when the minimum wage is raised that we will see the costs will not only eliminate jobs as I have shown in my previous contention, but the burden will be placed on consumers and this harms the average household as they now have to pay more. Not more as in numerical value, but the adjusted income which takes into affect what then occurs after the raising of the minimum wage. You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. [8][9] Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. [10]According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. [11] People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [16]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [17] Sources in the Comments Section.\",\n \"Public Labor Unions Are Beneficial to Society\\nI. Labor EfficiencyI. i. Worker's Contentment My opponent is basically trying to say that labor unions are beneficial because they gain collective bargaining rights to the individual worker, and that this makes them happier and more productive. However, this falls apart quickly. One, labor unions are extremely undemocratic. In this startling statistic: \\\"After all, less than 10 percent of America’s current union members have voted to have a union in their workplace—in many cases the union was already established and the worker had to join as a condition of employment. \\\"[1] If workers want to leave this environment: \\\"Moreover, most union constitutions consider any attempt by a member to secede from the union—including on an individual basis—a punishable offense that can result in steep fines and even termination of employment. \\\"[1] Therefore, unions are undemocratic and do not necessarily protect the wants of the worker. Second, labor unions reward for membership, not hard work. Not only does this encourage sloth, but this also is unfair to all the hardworking workers out there. Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies. [2] But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees. [3][4]Finally and most importantly, if unions put strains on workers, there is a more viable option for employers:\\\"Recently, Boeing was sued by the National Labor Relations Board because the company tried to move factories from the heavily unionized state of Washington to South Carolina, a right-to-work state. In this economic environment, unions aren't protecting their workers against evil corporations. Instead, they are protecting them from the droves of unemployed citizens looking for work. Boeing has no moral obligation to keep jobs in the U. S. If the government tries to restrict Boeing's flow of capital, Boeing can just as easily take the jobs to China. In a global economy, a state that allows powerful private-sector unions will lose jobs and experience slow economic growth. \\\"[5]I already stated in Round 2 that labor unions cause unemployment, and I just reaffirmed that unions tend to be unfair in wage distribution. This certainly does not promote happiness among workers. I. ii. Working Time \\\". .. Labor unions promote laziness and apathy. Laziness and apathy cause businesses to go bankrupt. \\\"[6]Labor unions tend to promote laziness (note I already explained why earlier), and wasted hours shouldn't count as worked hours:\\\"As a result of the high wage rates, employers can afford to hire fewer workers; as a result of curtailed production, employers need fewer workers. Thus, one group of workers obtains unjustifiably high wages at the expense of other workers who are unable to find jobs at all. \\\"[7] The same thing applies. Unions also tend to increase the amount of strikes and lockdowns. [8] \\\"Besides raising compensation costs, unions reduce government efficiency in other ways. Unions tend to protect poorly performing workers, they often push for larger staffing levels than required, and they discourage the use of volunteers in government activities. Further, they tend to resist the introduction of new technologies and they create a more rule-laden workplace. In the private sector, businesses can mitigate such union-caused inefficiencies. Unfortunately, public-sector managers have little incentive or flexibility to make such changes. A final type of inefficiency created by public-sector unions is the cost of strikes. \\\"[8] This is also a hinderance on total work time and especially on potential work time (i. e. time that could have been spent on business expansion and R&D that is now wasted). I ask my opponent, is there any evidence to his claims? II. Benefits to Societal Values and EconomyII. i. Societal Values I have already countered most of this (especially the part about employment), but I will touch on my opponent's claims that unions give workers rights and protects them (note I have already countered some of this in I. i. ). \\\"It was the economic self-interest of employers, that led them to raise wages and shorten working hours – not the pressure of labor unions. The eight-hour day was established in most American industries long before unions acquired any significant size or economic power. \\\"[7]\\\"The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the \\\"Industrial Revolution,\\\" blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. \\\"[9]It has not really been the unions that have helped workers' plights. Capitalism has given the workers the rights they deserve. Also, \\\"As a result of allegedly “pro-labor” legislation and of the monopolistic power that labor unions enjoy, unemployed workers are not free to compete in the labor market by offering their services for less than the prevailing wage rates; employers are not free to hire them. In the case of strikes, if unemployed workers attempted to obtain the jobs vacated by union strikers, by offering to work for a lower wage, they often would be subjected to threats and physical violence at the hands of union members. These facts are as notorious as they are evaded in most current discussions of the unemployment problem – particularly by government officials. \\\"[7]II. ii. Economic BenefitsOn marginal productivity: \\\"Further ambiguity is occasioned by Allen's (1984a) finding that absenteeism is at least 30% higher among union worker. \\\"[10] \\\"As a consequence, productivity growth tends to be slower in unionized firms and industries. Increased management opposition to unions, and declining union coverage and employment within most sectors of the U. S. economy, appear to be predictable responses to the relatively poor performance of highly unionized companies during the 1970s. \\\"[10] Unions lower productivity. On tariffs: \\\". .. the underlying truth about protectionist tariffs is that they aid domestic producers who've failed to meet the needs of domestic consumers. \\\"[11] Tariffs are bad, so the fact that unions are encouraging them is bad in itself. Finally, my opponent brings up two graphs that show the \\\"popularity\\\" of labor unions. Not only does my opponent commit an Ad Populum fallacy, it's also wrong; it's old. Look at this graph: [12] This newer graph shows 20% declines in union approval. Therefore, the public seems to be split on them. Sources:[1]: . http://www.forbes.com...[2]: Freeman, \\\"Union Wage Practices and Wage Dispersion Within Establishments\\\"[3]: David Card, \\\"The Effect of Unions on the Structure of Wages: A Longitudinal Analysis,\\\" Econometrica, Vol. 64, No. 4 (July 1996), pp. 957-979[4]: . http://www.heritage.org...[5]: . http://www.alligator.org...[6]: . http://www.broowaha.com...[7]: . http://www.nathanielbranden.com...[8]: . http://www.cato.org...[9]: . http://mises.org...[10]: Addison, John T. Hirsch, Barry T. , \\\"Union Effects on Productivity, Profits, and Growth - Has the Long Run Arrived? \\\"[11]: . http://www.forbes.com...[12]: . http://www.gallup.com...\",\n \"Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy\\nI wish him well and I know he will offer me a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy. It will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it used to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below); however, in excess of 85.5% of these workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase, 9 million of whom are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Cosco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \\\"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\\\" [5], as have executives of GAP [12]. 85% of small businesses already pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservatives estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1]. [1] . http://cbo.gov...[2] . http://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] . http://www.epi.org...; [4] . http://www.epi.org...;[5] . http://www.mybanktracker.com...;[6] . http://www.bls.gov...;[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://www.dol.gov...[9] . http://news.yahoo.com...[10] . http://www.bls.gov...[11] . http://www.foxnews.com...[12] . http://www.whitehouse.gov...\",\n \"Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy\\nI wish her well and I know she will present me with a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy; I will also be arguing that any proposed minimum wage hike should be indexed to inflation, to allow it to rise with the increasing cost of living. A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it use to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage would directly benefit 21.4% of the worforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below). However, more than 85.5% of all minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% of federal minimum wage earners work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase; 9 million of these workers are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Costco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \\\"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\\\" [5]; executives of GAP have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as well [12]. Already a full 85% of small businesses pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservative estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1].2 out of 3 Americans Support Raising the Minimum WageFinally, a large majority of Americans approve of raising the federal minimum wage. As inflation continues to increase and as wealthy employers increasingly keep more of their profits and distribute less to their employees, widening the income gap, Americans are recognizing the need to increase the federal minimum wage! A recent Wall Street Journal/CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour [13][14]; some polls show even greater support for hiking the federal minimum wage [4]. [1] (. http://cbo.gov...)[2] (. http://aspe.hhs.gov...)[3] (. http://www.epi.org...)[4] (. http://www.epi.org...)[5] (. http://www.mybanktracker.com...)[6] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[7] (. http://www.pewresearch.org...)[8] (. http://www.dol.gov...)[9] (. http://news.yahoo.com...)[10] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[11] (. http://www.foxnews.com...)[12] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...)[13] (. http://www.cnn.com...)[14] (. http://online.wsj.com...)\",\n \"Minimum wage should be increased in the US.\\nThe minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.\",\n \"Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy\\nIn ROUND 2 my opponent makes several points--including accusing the U.S. Federal Reserve of forcing inflation to benefit the U.S. economy. She also accuses this federal organization of \\\"crook[ing] the books\\\" to make the numbers it reports look good to the American people. This second specific point is an allegation of wild conspiracy and I consider it irrelevant to the debate; however, she does use this argument to indicate that inflation is actually higher than what is reported, because of alterations to the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is computed since the early 1970s [1]. (My opponent is actually wrong. Excluding the prices of fuel and food from the CPI has been the way the U.S. Federal Reserve has been computing this parameter for decades now--not beginning in 2009, as she claims [2].)I want to point out that if inflation is actually higher than what the U.S. Federal Reserve is reporting, than this should motivate us even more to hike the minimum wage and index it to inflation! This means that the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is even less than what the U.S. Labor Department is already reporting--and it's reporting a significant decrease in the value of the minimum wage over the last four decades in real terms with great worry [3]. (However, the inflation rate as reported is accurate; my opponent is in fact mistaken about the way the CPI is traditionally computed since the 1970s [2].)My opponent also claims that worker output should decide \\\"pay scales in a real economy\\\". I will demonstrate why she's correct, and why the 20% increase in worker productivity observed over this last decade should correspond with an increase in the federal minimum wage [4].I will demonstrate this and other reasons for hiking the federal minimum wage in this ROUND.Inflation has many causes, which is why the Federal Minimum Wage should be Indexed to InflationMy opponent argues that raising the federal minimum wage would be pointless, as inflation would eventually eat the gains caused by increasing the minimum wage. And on this point she is moderately right; however, inflation has many causes, as economists point out, and it's a healthy economic trend in any growing economy--as long as it stays within limits [5]. Inflation is caused when demand for a product or service outstrips supply, which causes prices to go up; it can also be caused when new popular technology is introduced--some brand names demand higher prices; but it can also be caused by the depletion of natural resources, by natural disasters, by an increase in production costs, by the deregulation of banks, by government regulation and taxation, by business monopolies, by the expansion of the money supply, and various other reasons [5]. Inflation is natural and unavoidable in any economy. But too much of it can present problems, which is why the federal government tries to regulate it wherever it can [5]. Increasing wages can also create inflation if a business passes on the wage increase to consumers, but this doesn't always happen [6]. Recently, inflation has caused even pay raises among middle class workers to be fruitless, as the modest pay increases simply aren't enough to deal with the deleterious effects of inflation, especially as the income gap grows between well-to-do employers, who are increasingly keeping more of their profits, and all other wage earners [7][4]. As I demonstrated in ROUND 2, the nation's wealthiest Americans are generating income comfortably exceeding the rate of inflation; the middle class has seen either stagnant wage growth or negative wage growth when accounting for the effect; the lower classes have seen the worse decline in income over this last decade [4]. Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would eliminate the accumulated deleterious effects of inflation over the years for low wage earners; linking (or \\\"indexing\\\") it to inflation would ensure the effects are prevented in the future.Four states--Florida, Oregon, Washington, Vermont--have already indexed their state minimum wage to inflation, and Minnesota is currently proposing to do so [8]. After raising the state minimum wage and indexing, the state of Washington saw no negative impact on employment some initially feared would be there [9]. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and then having it adjusted every year to keep pace with the rising cost of living [10]. It is a congressional bill President Obama endorses and continues to endorse [11], particularly in light of the recent executive order he enacted which hiked the federal minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10 [12].Since 2000, worker productivity is up 20%In ROUND 2, my opponent claims that worker productivity should decide their pay wages. I whole-heartedly agree! That's why I endorse raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Since 2000 worker productivity has risen 20%, even while median hourly wages among all workers have increased by only 3% [4]. Even more astounding is that since 2003, median hourly wages among all workers have not increased at all--zero increase in hourly wages--while the income of the nation's richest 5% have increased by 9% [4]! The nation's top 1% of earners have seen their incomes rise by 31.4% since 2009 [13]!This trend is frightening. While the nation's workers have seen their productivity rise, their income has not grown at all; yet the income of the nation's top 5% of earners continues to surge upward [4][5], widening the income gap. When the effects of inflation are incorporated, middle-class workers have seen their incomes stagnant while lower-class workers have seen the value of their wages depreciate, contributing to an uptick in poverty [4][14].Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the \\\"poverty threshold\\\" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [15][19]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the \\\"povery guidelines\\\" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as \\\"living in poverty\\\". The \\\"poverty guidelines\\\" are in actuality simplified versions of the \\\"poverty thresholds\\\" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [19]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as \\\"living in poverty\\\", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [17].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [15]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [15]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [15].The congressional budget office (CBO) projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [18]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn’t let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [14].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [13]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [13].(Note: R2 = Round 2; S# = Source number)[1] (http://www.bankrate.com...)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] S8, R2[4] S3, R2[5] (http://useconomy.about.com...)[6] (http://www.wisegeek.com...)[7] (http://www.washingtonpost.com...)[8] (http://www.ehow.com...)[9] (http://seattletimes.com...)[10] (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...)[11] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[12] S11, R2[13] S5, R2[14] S4, R2[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[16] (http://www.worldhunger.org...)[17] (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...)[18] S1, R2[19] S2, R2\",\n \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\\nThe current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\\n- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]“In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts.” [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. “In 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry.” [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. “The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.”[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\\nWhy the Federal minimum wage shouldn't be raised to $15.Since this debate is specifically about the Federal minimum wage, my arguments will focus on that. Since I missed a round, I will also provide my rebutalls to my opponents arguments.Cost of LivingThe cost of living varies across many states, and establishing a $15 federal minimum wage would either hurt a state, or overpay it's workers. We can use this tool provided by CNN to analyse this. Say we were to establish a $15 dollar federal minimum wage in place such as Des Moines, then the cost will be different in a state such as New York. For this example I will be using the $10.10 minimum wage, but all you have to do is extrapolate the data to see what will happen if we implement a 15 dollar minimum wage. For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate.\\\" These changes can be seen if we continue to compare other states. A federal minimum wage is just ineffective, because it's hard to pinpoint the right wage on a federal standpoint. Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities. Many states already have minimum wage laws that are set higher than the federal standard, and it's best if we let them take control of this, because they are accomodate their needs better.Will lead to job lossThink about the following senario. An employer has a worker, who generates him 20 dollars renvenue every hour. The owner pays him 15 dollars/hour, and makes $5 profit every hour. Now, the owner hires another worker, but he only generates 12 dollars revenue every hour. The owner pays him 7 dollars/hour, and generates $5 profit. Now, suppose a 15 dollar minimum wage is implemented, this would effect the owner very much. The worker was only generating 12 dollars, will know be paid 15 dollars for his work. What does that mean? It means the owner is losing money. No owner will want to keep losing potential profit, so he will likely fire the new employee. This is basic supply and demand law. And this According to several studies done by economists, they have come to the conclusion that minimium wage hikes will lead to job loss. This would also be significant since 64% of job creations come from small buisnesses.Here is some more evidence that proves minimum wage constitutes job loss. According to Federal Reserve bank of Chicago, “10 percent increase in the minimum wage lowers low skill employment by 2 to 4 percent and total restaurant employment by 1 to 3 percent.” According to the American Economist, 61% of economists were against the idea of a minimum wage raise. All this evidence indicates that the minimum wage hike is a job killer, and that it shouldn't be increased to $15 especially. Alan Kruger, a economist who once did a study on minimum wage effects in New Jersey, opposed a $15 dollar minimum wage stating a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences.\\\" Here is a graph showing the rise of teen unemployment after the minimum wage increase. Nearly after every minimum wage increase, unemployment rates have increased. Does very little to help the poorEmperical dates indicates that a minimum wage hike doesn't really effect the poor, because 60% of those in poverty are not even in the workforce. So, this would make it harder for them to get a job, because employers will try to hire those who are most experienced and more equiped for the job, even though the minimum wage job was meant for youngsters to get job experience. \\\"Research from economists at American University and Cornell University in 2008 showed the many state minimum-wage increases between 2003 and 2007 did nothing to reduce poverty rates. And economists at Ohio University found the federal minimum wage didn’t decrease poverty, and may actually have increased poverty for certain subgroups.\\\"EITCThe earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. This method is far more feasible as means of reducing poverty than increasing the minimum wage. EITC does not have such detrimental employment effects such as unemployment and outsourcement of job but works the other way around for it really is a subsidy to employers to employ low value labor. Here is a graph showing the wages of employees without their EITC, and with their EITC. As you can see, the EITC boosts wages, and this will help reduce the wage gap between the rich and poor. The best part is, the unemployment disadvantages that minimum wage creates are not present. Other studies also prove that EITC decreases unemployment. Hoynes and Patel also find that the EITC has significantly boosted employment. A $1,000 increase in the credit translates into a 7.3 percentage-point increase in the employment of single mothers. This means that as a result of the boost in 1993, hundreds of thousands of women have entered the workforce. Notable people such as Warren Baffett have said expanding EITC is the right thing to do.ConclusionA $15 dollar minimum wage is not the way to go, because it's ignores the cost of livings by state, increases unemployment, does very little to reduce poverty, and other solutions such as EITC are much more effective.RebutallsFrom reading Pro's arguments, I feel like he is focusing more on the idea of a minimum wage, rather than $15 dollar figure. I'd like to mention the debate wasn't really about that, and Pro is most certainly aware of that, especially since he accepted the debate saying he would argue for a $15 dollar minimum wage.C1: David Card's studyFor Pro's first argument, he says that the Conservative narrtative about minimum wage killing jobs is false, because a study done by David Card and Alan Krueger demostrate that this isn't the case. First we need to look at what their actual study was about. It was comparing the minimum wages of two cities which compared the fast food prices of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's important to note that this study was done by comparing two cities with similar costs of living. Also, the increase did not show any data that the minimum wage was a positive thing, rather there wasn't much of an impact with the unemployment. However, this debate is about a $15 federal minimum wage. So, this example is apples and oranges in many instances, because comparing minimum wage increases among cities is much different than minimum wage increase nationwide. Interesting enough, Alan Kruger himself said he was against the idea of increasing the minimum wage to $15.C2: Price Increases and everything elseI'll admit I'm a bit confused now, because Pro makes some arguments against the minimum wage, which are increased food costs. Not sure how I'll refute this.Pro's arguments about the bias in minimum wage articles, is rather defensive. Even if those arguments are biased, it doesn't give any reason why the $15 dollar minimum wage should be there. This is more of a rebutall than an argument.Regarding the link of the Department of Labor, many of those arguments are just cherrypicked examples of some studies which show a net positive in minimum wage. For example, the first rebutall by the DOL shows that hundreds of economists agreed with Obama, but these don't represent every ecnonmist. Most economists are against the idea of the minimum wage, so this is just a cherrypicked argument. Also, Obama's proposal is not a $15 increase, but a $10.10 increase. There is not gurantee all those economists would still support a $15 minimum wage.Finally, Pro's gives an argument states that gradually increasing it would give us good data to draw conclusions, but that isn't reallly an argument for an increase. That's like saying we should just ban all guns, so we can see how it effects the crime rate, but ignoring all the colleral damage caused by it! Minimum wage increases will increase unemployment as I have shown, and is ineffective in reducing poverty.My sourceshttp://www.degruyter.com...http://wheniwork.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://reason.com...http://www.republicanreader.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.vox.com...http://www.degruyter.com... https://www.epionline.org... http://www.krusekronicle.com...;\",\n \"On the authoritative minimum wage.\\nAssumptions: (1) That this debate is structured around the current going-ons of society ; (2) The United States can be the subject of this debate ; (3) This debate can refer to both a State imposed as well as a National minimum wage, as the Instigator has not stated otherwise. Introduction: My opponent has laid out a very nice argument for you obviously taken straight from an Economics class, as my opponent is correct in stating that the minimum wage, on paper, is economically unsound. However, many times other factors in a particular culture or society have implications that affect the way a system is supposed to work. For example, the current economic recession, the issue of outsourcing , America's problem with millions of undocumented workers, etc., have all factored into my reasoning as to why I am PRO in this debate. Contentions: 1. Abuse of the Labor Market A) Opponents of the minimum wage claim that its existence costs the labor market thousands of jobs, i.e. a business will hire less staff members because they can only budget a certain amount of money towards wages. This is an example of something that sounds good on paper, but in reality simply isn't true. The fact of the matter is, a business needs a certain amount of employees to run effectively. Legally, an employee can only work 40 hours a week without having to be granted Overtime compensation. Thus, it's highly unlikely that a manager would work his employees round the clock. Instead, he's going to hire the proper amount of people in order for his business to excel and be efficient. While maybe a FEW jobs may be lost, the likelihood of this is not nearly enough for you to concede to abolishing the minimum wage entirely. B) Without a minimum wage, management can abuse their workers by offering extremely low compensation. Sure the response to this is, \\\"Well nobody would work for a wage that was inappropriate.\\\" This is complete nonsense. History shows us (see: The Great Depression) that people will work for what's available to them when they are desperate. Imagine if the minimum wage was abolished right now, and every major corporation decided to pay those already making minimum wage just $2/hour. Surely that is unfair and inappropriate in comparison with the overall Cost of Living today. So what would my opponent suggest? Everybody quit their jobs until demand forces employers to pay more? That is not necessarily an accurate response, one because job availability is already so scarce (see: Recession), and two because there are many undocumented workers or foreign workers with little to no skill who would be willing to work for a fraction of what typical Americans would. Thus, employers have the ability to completely abuse the job market. Further, with so many employees out of work or making so much less money, the economy would suffer GREATLY (as people would have no money to spend) and the recession would only get worse. 2. The minimum wage is necessary for many families. A) There are millions of adults who work for minimum wage in this country. These people rely on these jobs (sometimes having two) in order to pay the bills and raise their families. If the minimum wage were abolished, thereby reducing wage rates, surely these adults would be unable to afford basic necessities like homes, clothing , food, etc. Teenagers who don't have any expenses (or have their basic needs met by their parents) would be willing to work for less compensation, because it is not as crucial of an income to them as it would be for adults and adults with families. 3. Abolishing the minimum wage puts an unfair burden on many Americans. A) Unable to take care of themselves, families would be forced to receive government aid like Welfare and Unemployment. In addition to this being a huge kick in the face to many people who WANT to work (for their psychological and social well-being), it also puts a huge drain on tax payers and the economy at large. Those who have usurped the minimum wage paying jobs and who now pay taxes with their very low wages will contribute very little towards taxes. Instead, middle income families (those who don't make minimum wage) will be effected the most. The wealthy will pay very high taxes, it's true, but will not feel the effect as much as the middle class. B) Additionally, inflation would surely occur due to less people being able to be active in the market. Therefore, the rising prices to balance out costs and whatnot would put additional burdens on the middle class. C) On that note, competing nations would not have the same economic burdens, therefore being able to sell their products for less money. This would completely destroy the American economy, and further advance the very real problem of job Outsourcing. 4. The face of politics/tax distribution. A) Obviously, political legislation would have to greatly be revamped and modified in order to sustain the new economic situation. Keeping many people extremely poor while a few (presumably business owners, CEOs, etc.) prosper exponentially can lead to a massive class separation even greater than the one that already exists. This is repressive and counterproductive to American ideals of equality (or rather equal opportunity) and can hinder many advancements that this country can have socially, technologically, etc. B) More taxes going towards helping people survive means less money for social programs, scholarships, research, medical and technological advancements, urban planning , etc. 5. The facts. A) Studies have also shown that higher wages reduce employee turnover, raise productivity, and increase product quality and customer satisfaction. Four out of five small business owners say that a ten percent minimum wage increase would have either a positive effect or no effect on their business. The Fiscal Policy Institute agrees that raising the minimum wage is good for small businesses. As the study says, \\\"There may be a Henry Ford effect at work here. If you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses.\\\" [1] B) \\\"The federal minimum wage increase of 1996/97 was followed by the best low-wage labor market outcomes in decades. When that proposed increase was under discussion, opponents predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase... Instead, the employment rates of the least advantaged workers soared to unprecedented levels, poverty rates fell to historic lows, particularly for minority populations, the least skilled workers, and single mothers. Low wages rose in step with productivity growth for the first time in almost thirty years. Note that I do not claim that the federal minimum wage increase was solely responsible for these outcomes… But Congress should take note: the 1996/97 increase complemented these conditions; it did not preclude them.\\\" -- Econmist Jared Bernstein [1] Conclusion: Like I said, economically speaking , an imposed minimum wage is non-sensical. However, in consideration with the current times, I think it's safe to say that a minimum wage is not only practical, but necessary. American workers, small businesses, and economists all agree that increasing the minimum wage is good for America. You should too. Sources: [1] http://www.dmiblog.com...\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$ Ha sorry I thought this debate was stupid do you realize what would happen if the minimum wage was 20$","Should Minimum Wage Be Raised Minimum Wage should not be raised simply because I believe that one should be qualified to have a high standard of minimum wage. What do I mean by qualified? Well it should be for families on low-income housing, drug-tested, and also on a government funded program. Those are the ones that deserve the Minimum wage to be raised. Now you if you want it raised for the entire country, that makes no sense. Especially those with fashionable lifestyles who don't even know what being broke ever was.","BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States I accept the challenge. My argument will be that minimum wage raise would increasing society. My points -More money to spend so more money that will go to entraining, movies, and gaming. -Increase in most wages For example minimum wage pays 10.10 to pizza guy If McDonald's doesn't raise it price to the manager of McDonald's which is about 10.00 in Illinois to 13-16 dollars then noone will take the job. So in reality everyone gets a raise. http://www.snagajob.com... -America Dream If your come out of Mexico and work in the field hard and can't even support your family there is a problem -Their be a job cut Yes and no Some career would not have jobs cuts for example a teaching Career Think about will a school cut jobs. Would they cut one of their two best teacher forcing the last one to work harder and possibly quitting. Which brings my other point there will be a job cut but the manager will be thinking what jobs aren't needed or workers that don't work well. -Prices will raise interest In this article its states that walmart would raise the prices by one cent. http://thinkprogress.org...","The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the United States ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 Wage Hike is Either Unfair or IndeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post provides an article which reads, \"Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren’t well qualified to determine what’s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.” [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer because of what the American Enterprise Institute notes, \"disproportionate effects by location.\" [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a \"one-size-fits-all\" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes. Contention II: Effects on Small BusinessesIf it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. \"Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won’t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it’s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation.\" [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4] These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts, small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7] With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [10] [11] [12] Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms small businesses, particularly. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.aei.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.nfib.com...[5] https://www.sba.gov...[6] http://www.alec.org...[7] http://www.cbo.gov...[8] https://www.epionline.org...[9] http://www.nber.org...[10] http://www.nber.org...[11] http://www.ncpa.org...[12] https://www.aei.org...","The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$ No? You do realize your arguing in favor of the law, right?","We should raise the minmum wage Hello. I welcome Adam to this debate. I would like to start off by stating that I do not have to state a specific amount the minimum wage should be raised to, therefore, my evidence can conflict in that regard. I would also like to note that in this topic we are speaking on a federal level; that is, we are assuming this is something the government would pass. In my opponents conclusion, he talks of how it is better to earn five dollars than no dollars. That would be lowering MW (minimum wage), therefore, he is in conflict with himself there. My opponent must maintain that the MW should be kept at the same rate. First, Small businesses say MW has little to NO IMPACT on small businesses. Eight in 10 small-business owners say they hire their new employees at a wage level that exceeds the current minimum wage. Of the 14% of small businesses who do hire employees at the minimum wage, two in three say they do not expect to keep their new employees at that wage for more than a year. One in three of these new minimum wage employees are also hired on only a temporary basis. http://www.gallup.com... And later, Forty-six percent of small-business owners say they believe the minimum wage should be increased while only 34% believe it should remain where it is now. Only 2% believe the minimum wage should be reduced although 14% think it should be eliminated altogether. And more! Eighty-six percent of small-business owners say the minimum wage has no effect on their businesses. Now you may say, \"These are arguments for MW to stay\", but look at the 2nd stat! The majority of small business owners think it should be increased! It is completely logical then, to refute my opponents C2 and C4, as business owners are fine with it. These are gallup polls BTW. Next, the American people want a higher MW. More than two-thirds of Americans say lawmakers should raise the national minimum wage to $10 per hour from its current $7.25, a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, since we are speaking of the federal government, and the government represents the people, then the government has an obligation to obey the peoples wishes and RAISE THE MW. Also, American people want more money, even if it risks their job. The three most-mentioned financial concerns in the Jan. 7-9, 2011, poll have been at the top of Americans' list for the past two years, with little change in the percentages who name each one. Note the first chart at http://www.gallup.com... (source) Next, an increase of MW was found to have no effect on job loss David Card and Alan B. Krueger, two leading economists, however, believe that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. These two economists observed the impact of minimum wage on employment by researching 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after a minimum wage rise. In April of 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05, Pennsylvania's minimum wage remaining constant. Under the traditional theory, the increase in New Jersey's minimum wage would predict higher unemployment. The study, on the other hand, suggested that raising the wage floor would in fact open new jobs. Card and Krueger also introduced the idea of wage levels influencing productivity. Higher productivity may offset the increased production costs. The minimum wage increase occurred during a recession in the New Jersey economy. Secondly, New Jersey's economy is greatly influenced by nearby states due to its small size. However, when minimum wage increased, full-time employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania full-time employment. And more! Economically conservative lawmakers traditionally argue that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses because they cannot afford to pay higher wages, and therefore are forced to layoff workers, further augmenting poverty. In a study done by the Levy Institute, the vast majority of small business owners interviewed said a raise in minimum wage would not cause them to layoff workers, or decrease the number of new workers they could hire. The Levy Institute interviewed 560 businesses with under 500 workers each, asking them questions about their hiring practices, particularly with regard to a possible increase in the minimum wage. Of those businesses, only 6.2% said a raise in the minimum wage would negatively affect their hiring practices. When the minimum wage was increased in 1997, economists and lawmakers feared there would be significant job losses, but instead it was the best job market in 30 years. This shows the demand for labor is wage inelastic; meaning changes in wages does not affect the amount of labor demanded. From http://wiki.dickinson.edu... And next, the rising inflation calls a need for a higher MW. From the same source as above The Problem with the current Minimum wage is that it has failed to keep up with inflation and rising cost of living. This means that over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decrease. The current minimum wage is not longer enough to keep working families from meeting their most basic needs such as cost of housing and food, health care, education and child care. According to Economist Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute the cost of basic necessities has increase by almost 50% between 1991 and 2007. As a result low income families are stock in poverty and the income gap between the low and high class is continuously increasing. The federal poverty guideline released in 2007 shows that the minimum wage is insufficient. A minimum wage worker that works full time: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will only earn about $12,000 annually. This means that at the current minimum wage, a full time worker earns 40% below the poverty guideline. The established federal poverty guideline for a family of three is approximately $17,000 So it can be obviously seen here that we should raise the MW, and there are numerous things about it. Next, to rebut my opponents contentions: C1: Well what have we here? His source also admits that an alternate explanation could simply be the bad economy. And also, this makes no sense, considering the many polls I have provided. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. (from his source #2) C2: source was from 1996. Thats before adam was born. The current recession had not hit yet, and so this source is hopelessly outdated. C3: His argument makes no logical sense. All of the high schoolers I know know that if you spend the extra 2 years and finish, that instantly opens up a motley amount of options for you. It simply makes no logical sense C4: Wait… So high income families spent $86 a YEAR? Are they all starving themselves or something? There is now way that stat makes ANY real sense. To talk on teenagers for a bit: The thing here is that teenagers technically don't need a job, and whenever they finish high school, they are automatically more eligible for jobs. Oh yes, and notice the subtle not bringing up of the General welfare?","increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good The idea behind increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is that we'll index it to inflation. How would hamburgers rise from $1 to $3? McDonald's could increase wages to $15/hour and prices would rise 17%. $1 would become $1.17. http://articles.latimes.com... Also, the idea that it downplays education is asinine. $10.10 isn't going to convince a college student to drop out. If anything, it would only help pay for an education.","Increase the Minimum Wage P1: Minimum wage, in many households in the U.S., does not cover the basic cost of living. ( http://www.cbsnews.com... ) P2: Increased purchasing power of low-wage workers will help stimulate the economy. C: The government should increase the minimum wage.","Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Thank you to BobtheCanOpener for agreeing to this debate.Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Definitions and ParticularsFederal Minimum Wage -\"The minimum hourly rate of compensation for labor, as established by federal statute and required of employers engaged in businessesthat affect interstate commerce. Most states also have similar statutes governing minimum wages\" (1).Raising - We'll be using the most recent proposal being debated by Congress, which is increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Detriment - \"a cause of loss or damage\" (2). Net - \"remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross) (3). As is probably self-explanatory, we're dealing with whether the net effects of raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would be positive or negative. PRO will argue that raising the minimum wage will be, on balance, harmful to the U.S. economy, whilst CON will argue that raising the minimum wage would be, on balance, beneficial to the U.S. economy. The burden of proof will be equally split for both debaters.StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is shared. Sources (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...;Thank you again to BobtheCanOpener. I look forward to a productive discussion.","Raising the Minimum Wage Arguments on culture aside, how much would we raise the minimum wage.10, 20, 30, 100 dollars. If we raise the minimum wage now, it is a slippery slope down because we will continue to see people in poverty and want to help. But the economic repercussions of continuing to pay workers more and more for the sole reason that we think they need it and are entitled to it sounds like a form of welfare to me. Certain jobs equal a certain amount of pay and if you pay workers who are working jobs that require little background education lots of money, it will also serve as an incentive for people on the edge between minimum wage and the possibility of earning higher wages, to choose to not go to school and just earn the new higher minimum wage. Our society should not be encouraging people to work at the bottom, but hustle from cradle to grave in school and in the workplace to make the best of themselves and the opportunities that are in our country. The best thing that parents struggling with children now, is to teach them and encourage them to do their best at everything that they do, because life may not be that much better for them, but they can make a huge difference in their children's future lives.","February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage I have no objections.","Minimum Wage I am debating that minimum wage is good and that we should not raise the wages. In my opinion we should not raise the wages we get paid. We don\"t work at jobs just to work at jobs. The owners hire employees so that the employers/owners can make money. Let\"s look at Burger King for instance. Let\"s say they raise the wage to $20.00 an hour. If they don\"t jack up their prices on their food they will lose money. Also raising the wage will not make anything better. Everything will just double the price. There will always be poor people, so that problem is not solved. Also money doesn't grow on trees. Let\"s look at the sales example, say the wages are raise, which means the people who make car parts have to jack their prices up. Then when you go buy the truck or whatever car the price will be doubled. Taxes will be doubled too. So this is not a win win situation. Nothing will change, the only thing that will change is how much you get paid, but you will still be left over with less money than you started with. Check this out!! http://www.dol.gov...","February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage Forgive me, I shouldn't have created this debate.","The Minimum Wage should be increased. In this debate, I will argue that the Minimum Wage should be increased. Unfortunately, most Republicans oppose the notion because they call it a \"job killer.\" I would like to prove them wrong. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.The rules of the debate are the following:1. Sources, if any, must be cited correctly.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. They must be based on fact, not opinion. 5. There will not be any forfeiting. If my opponent forfeits, he automatically loses the \"conduct\" points. I will not state the structure of this debate:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion","The Minimum Wage The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That’s first order. 10$ isn’t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It’s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this – just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn’t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://thinkprogress.org... 5. http://www.occupy.com... 6.","BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States The minimum wage in the United States is currently $7.25. My opponent will be arguing that it should be raised. My opponent shall argue that it should be raised any increment higher then 1 dollar so any wage $8.25 or above. All definitions in this resolution are self explanatory.","Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found \"no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.\" Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found \"little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment.\" Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A person working full time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour earns $15,080 in a year, which is 20% higher than the 2015 federal poverty level of $12,331 for a one-person household under 65 years of age but 8% below the 2015 federal poverty level of $16,337 for a single-parent family with a child under 18 years of age. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. A 2013 study by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, PhD, estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is \"projected to reduce the number of non-elderly living in poverty by around 4.6 million, or by 6.8 million when longer term effects are accounted for.\"","Minimum wages should be raised Well, I wonder where you get your information. Raising the minimum wage does not raise taxes. On the contrary, states and federal governments are able to collect more taxes from the new higher \"income\". It doesn't cause inflation, either. There hasn't been an increase in wages to keep up with inflation since 2007. In other words, the $ 7.25 an hour of 9 years ago, do not buy the same amount of goods in today's dollars. Homeless people are homeless for several reasons. None have to do with raising the minimum wage. It has to do with a lack of a supportive system, mental health mostly. Other homeless people are our beloved veterans of wars, who fall in that category because our system has failed to support them appropriately. Economists have agreed that the more disposable income a person has, the more they can reinvest in the economy. More goods purchased equals more demand, therefore manufacturers can produce more and sell more. It's that simple. It is unfortunate that the raise of the minimum wage has become a partisan issue. Getting information from reputable unbiased sources is a great way to increase our knowledge and be independent thinkers.","Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Your whole argument was based around helping the people on minimum wage. Of course raising minimum wage would help those people. I somewhat agree with you that minimum wage should be increased. For younger people I believe there should be a different minimum wage than there is for older people. As I have said before minimum wage shouldn't be for an adult in his 40s with kids and a wife. The minimum wage jobs should be a start for people, not a permanent job. If we raise the minimum wage for younger people that will give them a good start off to their future endeavors. Then the regular minimum wage of $7.25 should be enforced when they are in their late 20s. You talk a lot about people on minimum wage receiving food stamps and things that cost the taxpayer money. If we raise minimum wage then the Walmarts, Mcdonalds, etc... will raise their prices as a result causing more money to the taxpayer. Food stamps should not go to people who can't find a job or are poor because they are get into trouble with the law. To get food stamps you should prove that you are a good person to society and are actually trying to find a good job. Minimum wage will hurt small businesses too. If we were to raise minimum wage by that much it would hurt small businesses a lot, especially the ones that have a lot of minimum wage employees. I can see how increasing minimum wage for younger people would be good so that they can sustain themselves and worry about getting ready for the real world as opposed to worrying about money. However, if we get adults in their 40s sustaining their families on minimum wage then that becomes a problem because then there is no motivation. In America, you are suppose to have to work hard to obtained a job to support yourself and if you have one a family.","Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I am in strong affirmation of the resolution, which states that the national minimum wage should be increased. I will now give my contentions. Contention 1: A $15/hour minimum wage won't result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it -- thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. In 1996, we raised the minimum wage, and businesses predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. (Robert Reich, Professor of Public policy, California University Berkeley) Contention 2: Working full time should produce enough money to support a family. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) Contention 3: By under-paying workers, corporations are shifting the real costs of doing business to the general public. According to a study released this October by the University of California and the University of Illinois, 52 percent of America's fast food workers receive assistance from public programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid, thanks to their poverty-level wages. As a result, taxpayers are contributing $7 billion per year to pick up the cost of supporting these fast-food workers. These taxpayers are paying enormous amounts to support the impoverished employees of Wal-Mart and other giant companies. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution.","The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised First off, you question whether \" the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce\" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement \"raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. \" seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : http://www.essortment.com....... \"Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. \" To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give \"merit' or \"service\" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.","February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage It's ok. Hopefully we can debate in the future on minimum wage.","Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Thanks for accepting. There are many reasons that the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. 1. Raising the minimum wage will benefit the economy. http://www.cnbc.com... By raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour the economy will raise with it. \"The U.S. economy is constituted by 70 percent consumer spending. Raising the national minimum wage would inject as much as $450 billion in the U.S. economy each year, money that entrepreneurs would have the opportunity to chase after. A $15 minimum wage would also save taxpayers an estimated $153 billion a year, according to a study by the University of California, Berkeley. This is because companies that pay low wages force workers to get food stamps and other benefits to help offset their low wages.\" http://www.globalresearch.ca... 2. Benefit Americans, Americans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage. \"No one deserves to live in poverty. The last 30 years have drastically skewed labor relations in favor of the employer, lowering workers wages, health care, pensions, and job protections in the process, creating massive poverty and economic uncertainty. This dynamic is now considered \"normal,\" where 30 years ago it was considered a radical anti-worker ideology. A $15 minimum wage is the quickest, most direct route to empower working people, and directly intervene into the labor market on the side of the workers.\" http://www.globalresearch.ca... An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130....... Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $9.80 -- about $20,400 for a year of full-time work -- within two years. In subsequent years, the required pay rate would be increased each year by the same percentage that the federal Consumer Price Index rises. http://www.salary.com... 3. Benefit the world. If the US economy stays on it's feet, it will benefit the world economy. Since we learned in point one that raising wages will help the economy, if the economy is benefited the dollar goes up helping much of the world. http://www.worldfinancialwatch.com... In closing. I wish to say more but my internet is going wacky on me. Again I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and I apologize for the time it took for me to get'er done. I personally believe I have stated how and why it is important to raise the minimum wage to $15. Happy AIDS day!","$15 Minimum Wage The minimum wage debate played a massive role in the 2016 election, and has swept the nation. I will be advocating against raising the federal minimum wage to $15. My opponent must advocate in favor it. The structure of the debate is simple: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4.","Should Minimum Wage Be Raised Honestly, so many people are going bankrupt and are losing their houses with their families along with them, if we raise minimum wage then the money will be equal, it doesn't have to skyrocket, just maybe by like $1.5 - 2.0 then people would be in a more happy mood. you also have to think who this money is going to, for example teachers get paid minimum wage and they have to teach our future geniuses and they should get paid more, or even your own family, how would you like being kicked out of your own house then whatever you use to argue against me right now would effect you?","should the government raise minimum wage id say that they shouldn't because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent.\"Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so, Jacoby argued, especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore, increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says, in a policy brief.\" Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkin's bill has been referred to committee, which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season, action on such a controversial issue is unlikely.","should the government raise minimum wage what pro fails to mention is that though I don't mention evidence to support my argument but he don't either he doesn't rebut my claims either. Should the U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15? The issue is nuanced: Raising wages would boost employee paychecks, but it could also cause cost-conscious companies to reduce hiring. But with many states taking independent action to increase wages\"and with a $15 federal minimum wage \"over time\" added to the Democratic Party platform last week\"we asked three faculty experts to discuss the implications. Boost jobs through an earned income tax credit, better education, and reduced licensing requirements Erik Brynjolfsson We\"ve seen median wages stagnate for almost 20 years in the United States. How can we increase them while also boosting jobs? Here are three ideas: One: expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC; Two: reinvent education; and Three: reduce occupational licensing. Here\"s how the EITC works. Suppose that someone is earning $12 per hour, and we\"d like to them to earn $15. With an EITC, they\"d get an additional $3 per hour worked from the government. The money to pay for this would come from general tax revenue including income taxes, or ideally increased taxes on carbon dioxide\" emissions, congestion, and other things we\"d like to discourage. One of the benefits of the EITC is that it encourages employers to hire more workers, unlike increasing the minimum wage. That\"s important because I\"ve been convinced by sociologists like Bob Putnam that work has value beyond the dollars it provides. It\"s good for society to keep people engaged in the workforce, and we should be rewarding entrepreneurs and managers who come up with jobs. Another way to increase both wages and jobs is by increasing the educational levels of our workforce. The wage gap between the most and least educated workers has grown enormously since the 1980s, and better-educated workers also have much lower unemployment rates and higher rates of workforce participation. But it\"s not enough to simply do more of the same. We need to reinvent education for an age where machines are increasingly doing cognitive tasks\"the second machine age. That means a greater emphasis on skills like teamwork, project management, persuasion, leadership, coaching, and creativity. I believe these can be fostered in the right educational settings. Last but not least, we need to reduce unnecessary occupational licensing. Over 25 percent of workers now require a license to do their jobs, a five-fold increase since the 1950s. While some licenses are important for safety or other reasons, research has shown that excessive licensing requirements reduce employment and mobility. Requirements vary widely across states: Michigan requires three years of education and training to become a security guard, while most other states require 11 days or less. Having more people working and earning good wages is good not just for the people we help, but for all of us: People who work are more engaged in community, creating a virtuous cycle. If we do these three things, we\"ll be on track to becoming a richer, more engaged, and more dynamic nation. -- ErikBrynjolfsson, professor of information technology and director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy A higher minimum wage, by region Simon Johnson I\"m in favor of an increased minimum wage, but there is a valid question of \"by how much?\" Would you lose jobs as a consequence of increasing the minimum wage above some level? Labor economists have studied this carefully, and while there is no consensus, it\"s not difficult to support an increase to $12 per hour on the basis of the available evidence. In areas with higher living costs, a higher minimum wage can make sense\"and some states are already planning to phase in $15 per hour over several years. However, especially in less heavily urbanized areas with a lower cost of living, a higher national minimum wage could have unintended consequences, in the sense of reducing hiring and potentially increasing unemployment. -- Simon Johnson, professor of global economics and management A modest, stepwise increase over time Thomas Kochan It\"s clearly beyond time to increase the minimum wage. But it\"s a political stalemate: It has less to do with economics than politics. Congress has not acted positively on labor legislation for a long time. They block essentially all changes in labor policy, whether it\"s increases in wages, updating hourly wage legislation, or in other areas of labor relations law, all of which badly need to be updated. The stalemate has led states to take action on their own. Half the states have recognized the need for an increase. It\"s time to catch up. We\"re at $7.25, which is ridiculous. My view is that $15 is a reasonable target for the future, but we should raise it in steps at the federal level. An immediate jump to $15 would be too abrupt a change. It could have significant negative employment consequences. If we increased it step-by-step with a goal toward $15 over a period of years, it wouldn\"t have significant employment effects. We could start at $10, then go up to $15 over four years. President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against \"income inequality.\" In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. Studies Mark Wilson, \"The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws,\" Policy Analysis No. 701, June 21, 2012. Richard V. Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan, \"The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation Revisited,\" Cato Journal, Vol. 13, no1 (Spring/Summer 1993). Clifford Thies, \"The First Minimum Wage Laws,\" Cato Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 1991). President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against \"income inequality.\" In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. The debate over raising the minimum wage has been a hot topic after President Obama explained in his 2014 State of the Union Address that he intends to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, an increase of over 40 percent. While the President and his supporters claim that this increase would greatly benefit the economy and result in no loss of jobs, the opposition claims that this would be detrimental to minimum wage employees, resulting in 500,000 fewer jobs. In the following article, we\"re outlining the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage.","The minimum wage should be raised I accept the challenge and will debate that we should raise the minimum wage. The resolution or the con speaker did not define or say how far reaching this raise was or how much it will be, so I will debate that this will be a increase on the existing federal minimum wage. I would first like to state the purpose of the minimum wage. It has been and still is needed to prevent a slave like wage for work. FDR, who put the first minimum wage in place, stated that this was needed so people can support themselves. This minimum wage has to change and grow with the gain in inflation and growing cost of living. We still have now that the minimum wage still ends up getting you below the poverty line and in need of welfare programs which is of more cost to or already large deficit. A raise in the minimum wage and its effect on the economy has had a lot of research over it but nothing has come up with much conclusiveness. Many do show that there is a job loss in youth or low-skilled work, though usually only a small amount. However, I would argue that the majority of people will be helped by this increase in wage and the small amount hurt is insignificant. I am not saying that we raise it to 15 dollars an hour, just a modest dollar or two. Over half of the states already have a state minimum wage greater than the federal on so this increase will have little change. The Con speaker has brought up the problem of immigrant and youth workers. The problem is is that those workers are already competing with natives. Yes, immigrants may offer to work less but the work is the same. Many immigrant fill jobs with low supply. Also the change in youth employment would be very negligible and also is a non-issue. Many teenagers are already supported by their parents and the job is mostly for just spending. Many places of work also depend on teenage workers because the supply of older ones are not their, again showing that a raise would not change much. The issues that face black Americans are real and need to be dealt with. It will be with better focus on education and vocational training. Not raising the minimum wage is not a solution to the problem. We must also take into consideration that the raise increase will give more money to lower wage workers who will spend it, and thus, stimulating the economy. The faults in raising the minimum wage are present but there is a net gain in doing so modestly.","Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Rules 1. No trolling 2. Please keep some sort of format when responding 3. BOP is shared 4. 1st round is a constructive speech round Definitions Federal minimum wage: The wage set by the American government as the lowest possible wage for American workers set at $7.25 an hour. https://www.dol.gov...... I negate the resolution that the US federal government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for the following contentions: Contention 1: States are much better actors The economies of different states vary drastically for a reason. Certain states may be able to only support one minimum wage due to circumstances such as the labor pool, average education of workers, and how many businesses pay at minimum wage to any of their employees. Mr. Holzer, a previous chief economist of the Department of Labor wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015 and has stated the following: “In a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills – including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants – are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants.” http://www.brookings.edu...... We can see proof of this in the status quo with the failed project in Washington D.C where the minimum wage was raised, which failed miserably as there was little job growth in industries with low-wage workers as well as the fact that benefits and expenses on employees were cut so businesses could stay in the red. http://www.forbes.com...... This gives a valid example of how a minimum wage can actually harm the very people we are trying to help federally, which applies to the whole country. However, individual states are more understanding of their own limitations and can fairly regulate, and possibly raise, the minimum wage to fit the needs of the people while not being too stressful on the job market. A much more reasonable way to fix the problem would be to mandate that states raise the minimum wage by at least five percent, and at most 15%. We could see a moderate increase in revenue for people that could push more people into jobs with a higher incentive to join the labor market. However, as it stands, we cannot pass the resolution on the pretext that we are relying on the federal minimum wage, and not the states. Contention 2: Increase price for consumers Businesses exist for a one, primary goal: to make a profit. So, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see that businesses would be paying more on their employees and less on their products while demanding a higher price to still maintain a profit. A fifteen-dollar minimum wage, which is a huge increase for many states, would no doubt have this affect. In fact, we can look at Breitbart in August of 2015 which shows this exact problem occurring as pizzas, an everyday consumer item, cost thirty dollars at one pizzeria. This is only one example listed in the article. There have been estimates in the article from the National Federation of independent businesses that point out other harms as well as illuminate the problems associated with the minimum wage hike as well which includes the following escribing a possibility of legislation that would come through the state congress in California: “…The state’s 2013 legislation raising California’s minimum wage rate to $9 per hour in 2014 and $10 by 2016 would shrink the state’s economy by $5.7 billion in the next 10 years and would cost the state roughly 68,000 jobs–63% of which would come from small businesses.” http://www.breitbart.com...... We can see another example of this problem if we were to look at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 where it is shown that: “• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle’s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management’s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef. • San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).” https://www.aei.org...... We can clearly see from the examples shown that there is no such thing as a minimum wage that does not affect prices for consumers, showing that there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the personal need of people working the minimum wage and the consumer’s need for affordable goods and services. Since the fifteen dollar minimum wage does not account for this, we need to negate, if only to keep a fair and balanced system that can be tweaked later to bring about better effects. Contention 3: Counter-plan I will concede the following, the minimum wage needs to be increased moderately and on the state level to ensure that the previously mentioned points do not take effect. What also needs to happen is that we need to guarantee that there is a happy medium between the hike of the price for consumer goods and the individual need of money to support families for the people on the minimum wage. That being said, we should also incentivize getting into higher education and high-skilled jobs through prioritizing education in less affluent regions of the country and try to make college more attractive to those who come from poverty. Finally, we need to ensure that small businesses do not fail, so an annual audit of small businesses in all states should be done by the Department of Labor to ensure that progress is being made economically and to combat poverty and raise the standard of living. This will also help determine what states would need higher minimum or lower minimum wages. Until my opponent can refute my counter plan as a worse idea, we can’t pass today’s resolution with a clean conscience as we can tell there is a much better solution that could be enacted. As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution and favor the counter plan instead to ensure that the previous points mentioned will not occur and we can have job security. Thank you.","The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States The first round will be to accept this debate The minimum wage has been a major issue recently, with fast food workers calling for it to be raised to $15 an hour. Rules: 1: No cursing, be polite","The Minimum Wage Should Not be Raised There should be no minimum wage. In a free market economy it is up to the citizens to decide whether or not a business should stay in power. The higher the minimum wage the more deflation occurs. If we see an abolished minimum wag pretty soon one penny will be worth the equivalent of one dollar. It is this in fact that allowed America to dominate the economic landscape for many years. But with more government control of the economy does not help it, in fact it hurts it. The United States of America should enact this plan. The United States of America will abolish minimum wage laws to protect the interest of small business owners and the average American.","Raise Minimum Wage The minimum wage should be raised to $16.97 or more. According to the Huffington Post, the amount of money a full time worker needs to be paid in order to survive in the cheapest county in the US is $10.20.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...","Labor Regulations While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a \"living wage,\" increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.","Resolved: Raising the Minimum Wage will do more damage to our economy. For sake of clarity, I will establish my interpretation of the debate topic as: \"Raising the federally mandated minimum wage rate will cause more damaging repercussions to the U. S. Economy than not raising the federally mandated minimum wage rate. \" If this is not Dpowell's interpretation of their established resolution, I welcome Dpowell the right and ability to specifically define their intended topic within their opening arguments.","The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. 3rd round rebuttals 4th round closing arguments and rebuttals LMF will argue that the minimum wage should be raised to fifteen dollars per hour. I will argue we shouldn't.","Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. I stand by my view that the US government should not meddle in the payroll of businesses. In history the only thing government has shown it is good at is destroying perfectly good systems. Contention 1 is expansion of economy (http://www.forbes.com...) Let us take for a moment that your views are correct and the minimum wage was increased to $10.10. Businesses are able to support these cost and the world is happy, right? Allow me to ask this; how is it that the business is able to support these new costs? Many would say, \"from the revenue that the company makes,\" and that is right. The revenue that is used to help and expand the business is what is used. The company is not making more money now it is making the same amount of money but with heavier expenses which would make the economy stagnant. Would it not? However that is in a perfect world because these companies are run by humans. These humans do not like to lose money and therefore counter higher wages with higher prices which merely defeats the purpose of the increase of wages and would only result in inflation. Contention 2 it raises the poverty among the unskilled and those new to the work force (http://americanactionforum.org...) while it would helped some people it would devastate a lot of people who actually need. the very system put into place to help the poor is the very one that will be their ends. this system only works theoretically much like evolution it can only work in theory. The reason it can only be a theory is because theories only have to be plausible and that is all this system is. And this debate is not what you think the minimum wage should be, it is should the government raise the minimum wage. so all your points based off of $10.10 have no foundation in this debate. The government is run by humans and only a humans intention is what matters, based off of you off point about ethics and philosophy, it does not matter how high they raise the minimum rate, right? It only matters the intention and because the government only has our \"best\" interest they can do anything. that would led to higher and higher minimum with higher and higher inflation rates. eventually ending with inflation to rival Germany in 1923 where 4.2 trillion marks was worth one dollar.","Minimum Wage should not increase to $15. Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules:- No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary:The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater.","Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. I, Accelerator, hereby accept this challenge in that the US government should not raise the minimum wage. Aschente! (I swear by the rules)","We should raise the minimum wage I will accept this argument, and will affirm the resolved in that we should raise the minimum wage.","The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 My argumentsMinimum wage should be left up to more local governmentsNot only would I argue that the federal minimum wage should not be raised, but it should not exist at all. Minimum wage should be up to more local governments, such as states. 1) Every state has a different situation, where each one has a different cost of living. 12.50 might be a good fit for some states, but it's not enough for states like California or Hawaii, and it 's way too much for states like Mississippi and Indiana. For a source on the cost of living in each state, here is one[1]2) In addition to every state having a different situation, whenever the federal government passes a law, it affects more people than if the state government did. This means there are more people who would be opposed to the law than if a state government did it. For the purpose of making more people happy, and doing what is popular, it would be better to leave the minimum wage up to states or even more local governments. The more local the government that is making the law, the fewer people you have overall who will be dissatisfied with that law. I am concerned for the opinions of other people, even if they may have an opinion different from mine. I don't like the idea of forcing my views on other people, and the fewer people that I enforce my views on, the better. Why should South Carolinians, who, for the most part, are opposed to the minimum wage, be forced to have the minimum wage by the federal government? Minimum wage increases limit the freedom of workers to choose their wageNow, believe it or not, some workers may want to choose to be paid less than the minimum wage. I can think of at least one reason why: to be competitive. If you feel you can't get a well-paying job, you may make yourself more competitive to businesses by saying you'll work for less than someone else. Why should someone be denied the ability to ask to be paid less than a certain amount? I could name several times where I would have chosen to have a job that pays less than minimum wage. Not only would I get at least a little bit of money, but I would get work experience that I otherwise couldn't have. That would have lead me to get other jobs in the future that do pay well. Instead, what happened in reality because I couldn't find a way to be competitive for jobs, I didn't get a real somewhat permanent job until 4 years into job searching. Imagine how much sooner I could have gotten a somewhat permanent job if I was able to tell employers that I would work for 2 dollars an hour. I could have stayed at that job for a year, then maybe move onto a better job that paid 4 dollars an hour. Then one that pays 6 after a year, then one that pays 8 after another year. This is possible because I would have had work experience behind me from each previous job, and that would have added competitiveness to me. Over all, if I was able to start a job at $2 an hour, I would be earning more money now, in theory. Because I couldn't offer to work for a small amount, it likely hindered my ability to get a job until 4 years into job searching. I bet many other people have this problem: they can't find a job, and would love to work for less just to get work experience so that they can be competitive in the job market. Rebuttals to opponent's argumentsI will put any quotes I use from my opponent in italics, but otherwise I will put in bold the subject.Re: A person working full time should not live in povertyIt should first be noted that the poverty threshold in the United States is $12,082 for a single person[2]. If someone is earning 7.25 an hour and working full time, their yearly salary would be $15,080(I got this number by multiplying 7.25 by 40, the number of hours a week worked, and then multiplied by 52, the number of weeks in a year). A person living on their own is already above the poverty threshold if they work full time on the current federal minimum wage. Now, where they come into poverty is when they are trying to provide for 2 or more people. If we are to have a minimum wage, I think it should just be high enough to keep a single person out of poverty. Minimum wage, low-skill jobs aren't meant for providing for a family. You shouldn't be in a minimum wage job your entire life. If someone is in a minimum wage job for longer than a couple of years, they are probably doing something wrong, and this would be their own fault. Now, I do admit that it's not always the person's own fault for not having a higher-than-minimum wage job, perhaps the job market is very bad. In that case, the solution is for the governemnt to put policies in effect that will help the job market, not necessarily to increase the minimum wage. It should be noted, also, that there are a lot of high-paying careers which have shortages. Why aren't people going into those? Some of them include STEM fields, and the medical field. Granted, they do require education, and I do like the idea of public education to be tuition-free in some way. So, a solution to the problem would be to get education to be tuition-free in some way so that everyone has an equal chance at education. Going back to the issue of a single mother trying to provide for her and children, I would argue the mother was stupid for having children before she could provide for them. Sorry for being so blunt and politically incorrect, but people need to be smart about things. You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them! What kind of monster brings a life into this world that they can't provide for? Why aren't they thinking about how the child's quality of life will be before having it? If they can't make the child's quality of life to be good, then they shouldn't have children. Why should other people be punished for the mistake of a mother who decided to have children they can't afford? Other people, such as me, are punished with a minimum wage. As I said before, I probably could have gotten a job a lot sooner if there was no minimum wage. I bet a lot of other people feel the same way. Now, I won't be completely unsympathetic about the mother, but I think the solution to the problem where a mother is in a situation where they can't afford to provide for herself and her children would be charities. People should voluntarily help her out. Other people shouldn't be punished for the decisions of that mother, which I have the view that other people are punished for it by having a minimum wage. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expensesActually, I don't believe underemployment means that. I always thought it meant you have a job that you're too qualified for, and would be better fit for a job that is better than that one. This is basically what wikipedia says underemployment is[3]Also, all of the problems my opponent talks about can be solved on the local level, keep this in mind. I would like to ask my opponent: why does the federal government need to do minimum wage? Why can't the states handle it? Whether the states have a minimum wage or the federal government does doesn't seem to make a difference in terms of the problems you're talking about. Sources:[1] https://www.missourieconomy.org...[2] http://www.irp.wisc.edu...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...","Minimum wages should be raised Honestly, minimum wage is fine where it is. If you come at me with how many homeless people there are on the street, I just say \"That's their choice.\" I know that, sometimes, they can't get a job for various reasons, but if they can't get a job, they aren't important. Minimum wage should not be raised. This would also raise taxes, cause inflation, and make everything cost more, then repeating the process all over again. It's a vicious cycle. Eventually all people will not have enough money. Everybody will run out of money. Society will collapse. It will basically be the purge. And just because of that one dollar raise in minimum wage.","should the government raise minimum wage We are now at the point where there is no doubt that I have won this debate and CON has lost. CON concedes that he has no evidence to support his argument in the last round. Therefore, everything he's said so far is out in terms of determining who won this debate. But, worse, CON is wrong that I don't have evidence to support my rebuttals of his claims. Without re-posting a list of links and wasting character space, the judges are encouraged to review the foregoing rounds and see all the evidence I posted. As a point of consideration here: CON should lose the conduct point and the sources point. He should lose the conduct point for lying about the fact that I posted evidence, and he should lose the sources point because he has no sources. He has no links at all, just citations to articles that may or may not exist. Now, regarding the stuff he posted in the last round.... CON asked whether the \"U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15?\" The question here is whether, as I said above, the US should raise the minimum wage at all. The question here IS NOT HOW MUCH should it be raised. So, in talking about raising the minimum wage by a specific amount, CON is making an irrelevant argument. But there's another problem... and it's much murkier... CON literally stole his argument, verbatim, from this website: http://mitsloan.mit.edu... He did not link his argument to this website. He did not cite to this website. He literally plagiarized, and now must lose this debate for cheating. Like, read the article. It is word for word the same thing. In review, I have proven my side. CON has failed to prove his. I rebutted everything CON said that wasn't plagiarized. CON made no rebuttals at all, and tried to pass off this article (http://mitsloan.mit.edu...) from MIT school of management as his own... as if I wouldn't find it. So, even if you weren't convinced above that I should be winning the conduct point, now you have to be convinced because CON is a cheater.","The federal minimum wage should be increased So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: \"When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today.\" These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com...","The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 I believe raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit The American economy. Round 1 will be acceptance only. This is my first debate so I don't really know what to expect, but please just be cordial. Thank you.","Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)","Labor Regulations Even right here on Debate.org, the vast majority of people side with Ben Carson in believing that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment. (See http://www.debate.org...). Beyond that, raising minimum wage across the board (such as the federal mandate proposed by Sanders) would inevitably result in businesses raising goods and services prices to account for the additional money they are spending in payroll which would not only negate any benefit, (maybe people make more, but if they have to spend more - it's a wash) but would also put even more financial strain on middle-class Americans who were meant to benefit from the wage hike in the first place. As businesses start looking to cut costs (to make up for higher wages), it's very likely that benefits (such as paid time off, employee reimbursement, tuition assistance, and other perks) would be drastically reduced or cut. Employees would then have to pay for these expenses out of their own pockets, further reducing their effective take-home pay. Raising the federal minimum wage is not an effective or sustainable way to accomplish the goals that Sanders is fighting for. Although it seems like a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour would improve the financial situation of millions of Americans, it would actually bring about serious negative consequences for businesses, middle-class American families, and our economy as a whole.","The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 I would like to clarify that we are talking about the United States' federal minimum wage. Is this correct?But I do accept.","The minimum wage should be increased If the national minimal wages were raised then prices in EVERYTHING will go up as well. Gas may go up to $4.50 a gallon \"Big Mac's\" might raise to $5 Ect.... Not only that, but, students in primary and secondary school will have the idea that going straight out of high school he/she will be making $15 dollars an hour as a cashier at a fast food restaurant, instead of actually getting an education and a respectable job.","Living Wage I accept. Per our discussion in the comments, I will be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be raised to $10/hr. We will both assume for purposes of this debate that $10/hr constitutes a \"living wage,\" regardless of whether in actual fact $10/hr is sufficient to provide for necessities throughout the United States.Good luck.","The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Extend arguments and rebuttals.","The federal minimum wage should be increased You seem to be forgetting that people are forced into living on minimum wage due to the shrinking amount of well paying, high education jobs available. Again, there must be checks. For a Fortune 500 company to cut employees because they are making more per hour shows that, once again, these companies are shady and will do anything to make the big bucks. These people living on minimum wage do not make enough to get by, they lack the ability to break out of this cycle due to the lack of funding that they receive. (1) Quoting from the article: \"Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour, would inject an amazing $9.5 billion extra spending power into the economy (this assumes all 3.8 million workers are making exactly $7.25, that each additional dollar earned is spent, and that none of the 3.8 million are earning wages below the federal minimum wage \" even though there are 9 states that are below this level or which have no minimum wage law). If the minimum wage were instead raised to where it should be, at least $10 per hour (which would still put it below the minimum wage in 1968), this would release at least $60 billion over two years into the economy.. On top of this, an increased minimum wage may also lead to an increase in the hourly pay of other low-wage workers that only make slightly more than the federal minimum wage. This increased purchasing power across the board helps stimulate the economy and benefits small businesses, many of which were hardest hit by the recession.\" As you can see, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the economy and allow for more spending of the individual workers. Currently, these workers do not making enough. Some states do not even have minimum wage, or they offer much lower than the federal wage. The increase would force companies in these states to give minimum wage, and this would in turn increase the purchasing that these workers receive and may even help them out of this deadly cycle of low income. Sources: (1) http://www.timeforaraise.org...","Minimum wage should be increased in the US. My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.","Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!","Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, \"No round as agree upon.\"If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.No profanity.No trolling.Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.No Kritiks.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Minimum Wage Standard- The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee’s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (http://www.dol.gov...)","The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States.RulesBOP is shared1st round acceptanceNo K'sAny violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.","The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour This debate regards the following statement:\"The minimum wage in the United States should be raised to $15 an hour to support the economy.\"I am arguing against the statement and believe that the minimum wage should not be raised so high. My opponent must argue for a $15 minimum wage.","The Minimum Wage should be increased. Wow.....maybe I will win in this debate and then challenge you on another motion","The minimum wage should be raised The con side has forfeited the 2nd round so I will keep this short to keep it fair. The point of the minimum wage, as put by FDR, is to make sure someone can have a decent level of living. The current minimum wage is a poverty wage and needs to be raised. I do not want 15 dollars but more likely 10 dollars and will be implemented over a long time. The economic downfalls will be negligible and we will end up with a net gain.","should the government raise minimum wage The question here is whether the government should raise the minimum wage. CON seems to be talking about the United States, so I'll assume that we're talking about the United States. To win, CON has to prove that the government should NOT raise the minimum wage. On the other hand, I have to show that the government should raise the minimum wage. Current minimum wage in the US is 7.25 USD/hr. Nothing in the resolution says that I have to show how much the minimum wage should be raised. I just have to argue that it should be raised to win. First, I'm going to say why the minimum wage should be raised. Second, I'm going to rebut CON's case. Minimum wage should be raised: 1. Minimum wage should be raised because it does not pay a livable wage which creates an unfair burden on taxpayers and charities. The minimum wage should be raised because keeping the minimum wage where it is creates an unfair burden on taxpayers What basically happens is that because the federal minimum wage only pays $15,080.00/yr government benefits and private charities have to pick up the difference between \"what minimum wage-paying employers pay their employees\" and \"what it costs employees to survive\". Chris Lu, former deputy secretary of labor under the Obama administration writes in Time that: \"the federal minimum wage amounts to just $15,080 a year for full-time work. That translates into declining living standards, reduced economic mobility and a shrinking middle class. It mires workers and our economy in an impoverishing cycle created by inadequate pay. Far too many workers earning minimum wage turn to government assistance and food pantries to make ends meet. \" (Source: . http://time.com...) When workers earning the minimum wage have to turn to government assistance and private charities like food pantries to make ends meet, that means that corporations are passing off the external cost of employee labor to society and to taxpayers. This is basically a corporate handout that comes out of the pockets of hard working taxpayers, which is an unfair burden to place on society. The minimum wage should therefore be raised to alleviate this unfair burden on taxpayers. 2. Raising the minimum wage will stimulate economic growth. Economic growth in the service sector has not grown as fast as should have because the amount of disposable income for the majority of working Americans has not kept up with inflation. To illustrate, the minimum wage of 1968 would be $10.90 today. Except the problem is that inflation has exceeded minimum wage increases by a third. (Source: . https://www.pbs.org...) PBS reports that the unemployment rate was 3.6 percent in 1968 with a higher real minimum wage. (same source) So, that means that the unemployment rate is higher today \" at 5 percent \" than it was in 1968, while the real minimum wage is lower today than it was in 1968. Part of the reason for that is because consumers had more disposable income then, than they do now. By increasing the minimum wage, working consumers will have more money to spend locally, which they will (see source from Time above) and that will result in economic growth. One implication of that growth will be increased jobs. CON doesn't really have individual arguments, so I'll just rebut the ideas he talks about: CON claims that \"A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. \" This is false. Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains that a higher minimum wage minimum \"won\"t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it \" thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. )\" (Source: . http://robertreich.org...) The only way that a higher minimum wage would harm business owners is if revenues didn't keep up with the increased cost of labor. The problem with that assumption is that it ignores the second-order implication of a higher minimum wage: more domestic economic spending, which would result in increased revenues, as the sum of the available literature suggests would be the case. CON claims: \"And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent. \" Again, this is wrong for the same reason as stated above. Increases in disposable income are going to translate into increased local spending, which will increase revenues and likely increase profits overall. In order to make the argument that companies wouldn't be able to hire more people, you have to assume that the only part of the business's account sheet which would change is how much they have to pay their employees. Except, the evidence above shows that this is false because of predictable increases in economic activity. (The Time and Robert Reich article) CON Claims: \"Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so\" This has absolutely nothing to do with the minimum wage. If young workers want to gain experience and are willing to work for substandard wages, they can still take unpaid internships. The minimum wage has nothing to do with that issue. (. https://www.forbes.com..., discussing unpaid internships). More importantly, as Reich explains, \"Most low-wage workers aren\"t young teenagers; they\"re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. \" So, talk of teenagers is a red herring more or less for this issue. CON further claims \"increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. \" CON doesn't cite to this source so it automatically should be struck; he just makes a vague reference to it. But the question isn't whether increasing the minimum wage is \"proven\" to lower the poverty rate, because we're not talking about a specific amount to raise the minimum wage in this debate. To illustrate, if we raised the minimum wage by 0.01 USD, then that obviously would have very little if any impact on ameliorating poverty of any kind. The question is whether or not raising the minimum wage is a good idea or not. The evidence I've provided shows that it is, because raising the minimum wage will increase the standard of living, which (implicitly) means reducing poverty.","Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions:Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement.","The federal minimum wage should be increased But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: \"Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district.\" This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: \"The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix \" at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California.\" (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...","The Minimum Wage should be increased. The Minimum Wage must be increased. Republicans claim it to be a \"job killer\", but they obviously do not know anything about how the American economy works. No person working full-time should have to live in poverty. It is most unfortunate that this is occuring right this instant. Entry-level employees make a certain amount of money an hour, they work full-time, they come home and try to support themselves and their families. With a Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour (it is higher in some states), supporting yourself and your family would be nearly impossible. This is only my main point. Please allow me to elaborate in the next round.","The Minimum Wage should be Raised Many people in the US are thinking over this new bill. Which has already been passed in a couple different states. The basic overview of it is that; the minimum waige should be raised to $9.00. Now this may seem like a great idea, but can you imagine what this would do to our teens, and pre-teens? It is very apparent that if you raise the pay of an employee, than his/her boss will want the employee to work harder. So if you raise minimum waige, you will decrease the ammount of teens working in the economy. Therefore destroying the teenage dream of simply earning some extra money. This would ruin the chances for over 20 million kids to find work.","Minimum wages should be raised How do you think a mother feels when her child goes up to her and tells her that she does not want a birthday present because that child knows that her mother can not afford to buy her a birthday present? What if I tell you that if the minimum wage was raised that this mother and many like her can afford to buy a birthday present for their daughter's birthday? Many believe that the minimum wage should not be raised because small businesses can not afford to pay employees more that the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, or waiters/waitresses for example, who get tips earn $2.13 per hour. This translates into an average of $ 14,500 a year for a full time worker. Another reason that people say that the minimum wage can not be raised is that if the federal minimum wage is raised then the prices of goods and services also increase. Many also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. People argue that small businesses can not afford to pay employees more and as a result will end up firing many employees. This is just not true. In July of 2015 a survey found out that 60% of small business owners support a gradual increase to the minimum wage of $12.00. This survey also reports that small business owners preferred this because an increase of income would put money into the pockets of low- wage workers who will then spend the money on goods and services. This boost in demand will stimulate the economy and help create job opportunities. In fact, the White House published an article called Raise the Wage and it states that raising the minimum wage nationwide will benefit local economies and support millions of workers. Many people also say that the federal minimum wage should stay the same because if the minimum wage goes up then other prices will increase as well, and as a result everything becomes more expensive. Some states have placed rules in recent years causing increases in their minimum wages to help keep up with the already rising inflation. The federal minimum wage does not operate that way. According to the Department of Labor in their article Minimum Wage Mythbusters, in order for the federal minimum wage to increase it has to gain approval from Congress and the President. The plan is to gradually increase the minimum wage so it has time to adjust automatically with inflation. This will help low income families keep up with prices of the cost of living. People also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. What these people are thinking that the federal minimum wage is going to be raised immediately. In reality what President Obama wants to do is to raise the minimum wage in increments until it eventually reaches $15.00 per hour. He wants to do this because if he tells the whole country to pay their workers $15.00 per hour, employers will not have a chance to adjust to this sudden change. But if he asks to slowly raise the wage of employees, then employers will have the time to adjust. This way no jobs are lost. In fact 600 economists studied that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on employment of minimum-wage workers including at times of weakness in the labor market. Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) in an article called Why we Should Raise the Minimum Wage published on CNBC\"s website on April 27, 2015,he states that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from $7.25 per hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.","The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.\"","The federal minimum wage should be increased While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org","Raise the minimum wage I accept. Small raises in the US federal minimum wage is beneficial to low wage employees and has never been shown be a financial detriment to the US economy or employers, when spaced out over spans of time.","Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.","Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Resolved: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Shared burden of proof.","Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Lame.... I strongly urge for a Con ballot.","The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase \"overall costs\" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the \"overall costs,\" and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a \"negative ripple through the economy,\" I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in \"overall costs\" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)","The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.","The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Full Resolution - Resolved: The United States should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.Rules:Do not trollNo semanticsKritiks of the topic are unaccepableVulgarity is unacceptableRefrain from utilizing a counterplan - debate the resolution as it isMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere throughout the course of the debateIf necesssary/applicable, sources may be provided via an external linkFailure to comply with any of the above mentioned rules results in an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1: - Con: Rules- Pro: Acceptance and Initial Arguments/CaseRound 2:- Con: Opening Arguments/Case- Pro: RebuttalsRound 3:- Con: Rebuttals- Pro: Defense and RebuttalsRound 4:- Con: Defense and Rebuttals- Pro: Waive RoundDefinitions:The resolution should be self-explanatory. To avoid dispute or ambiguity:Ought: refers to obligation or logical consequence/necessity [1]I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......","Do anything I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)","Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I am Gatermouth, and I believe the minimum wage should be raised. I hope my opponent accepts this challenge.","The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. I'm sorry my argument is stupid >< I didn't have enough time to research it correctly. I'm just going to say that It would help people who are working very hard but struggling to pay the bills.","The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.SOURCE: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...;","Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn\"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased","Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. Your personal opinion has nothing to do with this debate \" Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.\" Deals with what the politicians want to raise the minimum wage to not what you want it as. The government will not raise it to $10 they will raise it above that as I have argued. Even if they were to raise it to $10 it would still be bad. take for example a business, this business pays it's employees livable wages and all is good. however if that minimum wage is raised then what is the point of paying someone $10 to bag food at the local convenience store, clean the halls of a building, or flip burgers. It is not economical nor is it logical; if I have to pay my employees more for average performance then I would fire the under performing one's that I could have afforded before and keep the more skilled hard working ones. then I would just replace the expandable labor with machines, because they would cost cheaper in the long run. But keep believing that business owners will just keep paying lazy people foe crap performance. You want to pay people at Walmart $10 an hour, be my guest, just don't expect there to be Walmart there or that it will help the economy with it's donations like it has been doing.","The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated.","Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. My opponent has forfeited... extend arguments. :)","The federal minimum wage should be increased The minimum wage increasing will allow more people to have more money, stimulating the economy and helping citizens who are currently in poverty reach out of it, take a foothold, and stay in the middle class. (1) These workers are not making enough to live on in this economy, and they need more. Unfortunately, jobs are very limited due to our ever rising population. (2) There has been discussion about how increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, and this is always a fear but unfortunately for this side; increasing the minimum wage and increasing prices would be disaster for these companies. The more money they have, the more they are willing to spend on luxury goods and more expensive food. This would increase sales and return on investment for companies. They must be made aware of this, and there must be checks in place to protect the costumers from overzealous companies and organizations. Most of the big names who are against the minimum wage increasing, tend to be owners, backers, or stockholders of very large companies that have had very shady practices regarding the minimum wage. Such as Walmart, McDonald's, etc. (1) http://www.postcrescent.com... (2) http://www.salary.com...","Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.","Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I accept this challenge and negate the resolution which is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage.","The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.","The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.","Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to All points extended. I'll let my opponent decide what he's doing in his final round.","The minimum wage should be increased Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post \"no round, as agreed upon\" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.","Raise The Minimum Wage I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level.Con will argue the opposite.","The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america."],"string":"[\n \"The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$ Ha sorry I thought this debate was stupid do you realize what would happen if the minimum wage was 20$\",\n \"Should Minimum Wage Be Raised Minimum Wage should not be raised simply because I believe that one should be qualified to have a high standard of minimum wage. What do I mean by qualified? Well it should be for families on low-income housing, drug-tested, and also on a government funded program. Those are the ones that deserve the Minimum wage to be raised. Now you if you want it raised for the entire country, that makes no sense. Especially those with fashionable lifestyles who don't even know what being broke ever was.\",\n \"BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States I accept the challenge. My argument will be that minimum wage raise would increasing society. My points -More money to spend so more money that will go to entraining, movies, and gaming. -Increase in most wages For example minimum wage pays 10.10 to pizza guy If McDonald's doesn't raise it price to the manager of McDonald's which is about 10.00 in Illinois to 13-16 dollars then noone will take the job. So in reality everyone gets a raise. http://www.snagajob.com... -America Dream If your come out of Mexico and work in the field hard and can't even support your family there is a problem -Their be a job cut Yes and no Some career would not have jobs cuts for example a teaching Career Think about will a school cut jobs. Would they cut one of their two best teacher forcing the last one to work harder and possibly quitting. Which brings my other point there will be a job cut but the manager will be thinking what jobs aren't needed or workers that don't work well. -Prices will raise interest In this article its states that walmart would raise the prices by one cent. http://thinkprogress.org...\",\n \"The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the United States ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 Wage Hike is Either Unfair or IndeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post provides an article which reads, \\\"Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren’t well qualified to determine what’s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.” [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer because of what the American Enterprise Institute notes, \\\"disproportionate effects by location.\\\" [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a \\\"one-size-fits-all\\\" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes. Contention II: Effects on Small BusinessesIf it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. \\\"Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won’t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it’s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation.\\\" [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4] These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts, small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7] With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [10] [11] [12] Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms small businesses, particularly. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.aei.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.nfib.com...[5] https://www.sba.gov...[6] http://www.alec.org...[7] http://www.cbo.gov...[8] https://www.epionline.org...[9] http://www.nber.org...[10] http://www.nber.org...[11] http://www.ncpa.org...[12] https://www.aei.org...\",\n \"The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$ No? You do realize your arguing in favor of the law, right?\",\n \"We should raise the minmum wage Hello. I welcome Adam to this debate. I would like to start off by stating that I do not have to state a specific amount the minimum wage should be raised to, therefore, my evidence can conflict in that regard. I would also like to note that in this topic we are speaking on a federal level; that is, we are assuming this is something the government would pass. In my opponents conclusion, he talks of how it is better to earn five dollars than no dollars. That would be lowering MW (minimum wage), therefore, he is in conflict with himself there. My opponent must maintain that the MW should be kept at the same rate. First, Small businesses say MW has little to NO IMPACT on small businesses. Eight in 10 small-business owners say they hire their new employees at a wage level that exceeds the current minimum wage. Of the 14% of small businesses who do hire employees at the minimum wage, two in three say they do not expect to keep their new employees at that wage for more than a year. One in three of these new minimum wage employees are also hired on only a temporary basis. http://www.gallup.com... And later, Forty-six percent of small-business owners say they believe the minimum wage should be increased while only 34% believe it should remain where it is now. Only 2% believe the minimum wage should be reduced although 14% think it should be eliminated altogether. And more! Eighty-six percent of small-business owners say the minimum wage has no effect on their businesses. Now you may say, \\\"These are arguments for MW to stay\\\", but look at the 2nd stat! The majority of small business owners think it should be increased! It is completely logical then, to refute my opponents C2 and C4, as business owners are fine with it. These are gallup polls BTW. Next, the American people want a higher MW. More than two-thirds of Americans say lawmakers should raise the national minimum wage to $10 per hour from its current $7.25, a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, since we are speaking of the federal government, and the government represents the people, then the government has an obligation to obey the peoples wishes and RAISE THE MW. Also, American people want more money, even if it risks their job. The three most-mentioned financial concerns in the Jan. 7-9, 2011, poll have been at the top of Americans' list for the past two years, with little change in the percentages who name each one. Note the first chart at http://www.gallup.com... (source) Next, an increase of MW was found to have no effect on job loss David Card and Alan B. Krueger, two leading economists, however, believe that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. These two economists observed the impact of minimum wage on employment by researching 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after a minimum wage rise. In April of 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05, Pennsylvania's minimum wage remaining constant. Under the traditional theory, the increase in New Jersey's minimum wage would predict higher unemployment. The study, on the other hand, suggested that raising the wage floor would in fact open new jobs. Card and Krueger also introduced the idea of wage levels influencing productivity. Higher productivity may offset the increased production costs. The minimum wage increase occurred during a recession in the New Jersey economy. Secondly, New Jersey's economy is greatly influenced by nearby states due to its small size. However, when minimum wage increased, full-time employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania full-time employment. And more! Economically conservative lawmakers traditionally argue that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses because they cannot afford to pay higher wages, and therefore are forced to layoff workers, further augmenting poverty. In a study done by the Levy Institute, the vast majority of small business owners interviewed said a raise in minimum wage would not cause them to layoff workers, or decrease the number of new workers they could hire. The Levy Institute interviewed 560 businesses with under 500 workers each, asking them questions about their hiring practices, particularly with regard to a possible increase in the minimum wage. Of those businesses, only 6.2% said a raise in the minimum wage would negatively affect their hiring practices. When the minimum wage was increased in 1997, economists and lawmakers feared there would be significant job losses, but instead it was the best job market in 30 years. This shows the demand for labor is wage inelastic; meaning changes in wages does not affect the amount of labor demanded. From http://wiki.dickinson.edu... And next, the rising inflation calls a need for a higher MW. From the same source as above The Problem with the current Minimum wage is that it has failed to keep up with inflation and rising cost of living. This means that over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decrease. The current minimum wage is not longer enough to keep working families from meeting their most basic needs such as cost of housing and food, health care, education and child care. According to Economist Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute the cost of basic necessities has increase by almost 50% between 1991 and 2007. As a result low income families are stock in poverty and the income gap between the low and high class is continuously increasing. The federal poverty guideline released in 2007 shows that the minimum wage is insufficient. A minimum wage worker that works full time: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will only earn about $12,000 annually. This means that at the current minimum wage, a full time worker earns 40% below the poverty guideline. The established federal poverty guideline for a family of three is approximately $17,000 So it can be obviously seen here that we should raise the MW, and there are numerous things about it. Next, to rebut my opponents contentions: C1: Well what have we here? His source also admits that an alternate explanation could simply be the bad economy. And also, this makes no sense, considering the many polls I have provided. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. (from his source #2) C2: source was from 1996. Thats before adam was born. The current recession had not hit yet, and so this source is hopelessly outdated. C3: His argument makes no logical sense. All of the high schoolers I know know that if you spend the extra 2 years and finish, that instantly opens up a motley amount of options for you. It simply makes no logical sense C4: Wait… So high income families spent $86 a YEAR? Are they all starving themselves or something? There is now way that stat makes ANY real sense. To talk on teenagers for a bit: The thing here is that teenagers technically don't need a job, and whenever they finish high school, they are automatically more eligible for jobs. Oh yes, and notice the subtle not bringing up of the General welfare?\",\n \"increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good The idea behind increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is that we'll index it to inflation. How would hamburgers rise from $1 to $3? McDonald's could increase wages to $15/hour and prices would rise 17%. $1 would become $1.17. http://articles.latimes.com... Also, the idea that it downplays education is asinine. $10.10 isn't going to convince a college student to drop out. If anything, it would only help pay for an education.\",\n \"Increase the Minimum Wage P1: Minimum wage, in many households in the U.S., does not cover the basic cost of living. ( http://www.cbsnews.com... ) P2: Increased purchasing power of low-wage workers will help stimulate the economy. C: The government should increase the minimum wage.\",\n \"Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Thank you to BobtheCanOpener for agreeing to this debate.Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Definitions and ParticularsFederal Minimum Wage -\\\"The minimum hourly rate of compensation for labor, as established by federal statute and required of employers engaged in businessesthat affect interstate commerce. Most states also have similar statutes governing minimum wages\\\" (1).Raising - We'll be using the most recent proposal being debated by Congress, which is increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Detriment - \\\"a cause of loss or damage\\\" (2). Net - \\\"remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross) (3). As is probably self-explanatory, we're dealing with whether the net effects of raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would be positive or negative. PRO will argue that raising the minimum wage will be, on balance, harmful to the U.S. economy, whilst CON will argue that raising the minimum wage would be, on balance, beneficial to the U.S. economy. The burden of proof will be equally split for both debaters.StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is shared. Sources (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...;Thank you again to BobtheCanOpener. I look forward to a productive discussion.\",\n \"Raising the Minimum Wage Arguments on culture aside, how much would we raise the minimum wage.10, 20, 30, 100 dollars. If we raise the minimum wage now, it is a slippery slope down because we will continue to see people in poverty and want to help. But the economic repercussions of continuing to pay workers more and more for the sole reason that we think they need it and are entitled to it sounds like a form of welfare to me. Certain jobs equal a certain amount of pay and if you pay workers who are working jobs that require little background education lots of money, it will also serve as an incentive for people on the edge between minimum wage and the possibility of earning higher wages, to choose to not go to school and just earn the new higher minimum wage. Our society should not be encouraging people to work at the bottom, but hustle from cradle to grave in school and in the workplace to make the best of themselves and the opportunities that are in our country. The best thing that parents struggling with children now, is to teach them and encourage them to do their best at everything that they do, because life may not be that much better for them, but they can make a huge difference in their children's future lives.\",\n \"February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage I have no objections.\",\n \"Minimum Wage I am debating that minimum wage is good and that we should not raise the wages. In my opinion we should not raise the wages we get paid. We don\\\"t work at jobs just to work at jobs. The owners hire employees so that the employers/owners can make money. Let\\\"s look at Burger King for instance. Let\\\"s say they raise the wage to $20.00 an hour. If they don\\\"t jack up their prices on their food they will lose money. Also raising the wage will not make anything better. Everything will just double the price. There will always be poor people, so that problem is not solved. Also money doesn't grow on trees. Let\\\"s look at the sales example, say the wages are raise, which means the people who make car parts have to jack their prices up. Then when you go buy the truck or whatever car the price will be doubled. Taxes will be doubled too. So this is not a win win situation. Nothing will change, the only thing that will change is how much you get paid, but you will still be left over with less money than you started with. Check this out!! http://www.dol.gov...\",\n \"February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage Forgive me, I shouldn't have created this debate.\",\n \"The Minimum Wage should be increased. In this debate, I will argue that the Minimum Wage should be increased. Unfortunately, most Republicans oppose the notion because they call it a \\\"job killer.\\\" I would like to prove them wrong. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.The rules of the debate are the following:1. Sources, if any, must be cited correctly.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. They must be based on fact, not opinion. 5. There will not be any forfeiting. If my opponent forfeits, he automatically loses the \\\"conduct\\\" points. I will not state the structure of this debate:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion\",\n \"The Minimum Wage The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That’s first order. 10$ isn’t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It’s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this – just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn’t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://thinkprogress.org... 5. http://www.occupy.com... 6.\",\n \"BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States The minimum wage in the United States is currently $7.25. My opponent will be arguing that it should be raised. My opponent shall argue that it should be raised any increment higher then 1 dollar so any wage $8.25 or above. All definitions in this resolution are self explanatory.\",\n \"Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found \\\"no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.\\\" Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found \\\"little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment.\\\" Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A person working full time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour earns $15,080 in a year, which is 20% higher than the 2015 federal poverty level of $12,331 for a one-person household under 65 years of age but 8% below the 2015 federal poverty level of $16,337 for a single-parent family with a child under 18 years of age. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. A 2013 study by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, PhD, estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is \\\"projected to reduce the number of non-elderly living in poverty by around 4.6 million, or by 6.8 million when longer term effects are accounted for.\\\"\",\n \"Minimum wages should be raised Well, I wonder where you get your information. Raising the minimum wage does not raise taxes. On the contrary, states and federal governments are able to collect more taxes from the new higher \\\"income\\\". It doesn't cause inflation, either. There hasn't been an increase in wages to keep up with inflation since 2007. In other words, the $ 7.25 an hour of 9 years ago, do not buy the same amount of goods in today's dollars. Homeless people are homeless for several reasons. None have to do with raising the minimum wage. It has to do with a lack of a supportive system, mental health mostly. Other homeless people are our beloved veterans of wars, who fall in that category because our system has failed to support them appropriately. Economists have agreed that the more disposable income a person has, the more they can reinvest in the economy. More goods purchased equals more demand, therefore manufacturers can produce more and sell more. It's that simple. It is unfortunate that the raise of the minimum wage has become a partisan issue. Getting information from reputable unbiased sources is a great way to increase our knowledge and be independent thinkers.\",\n \"Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Your whole argument was based around helping the people on minimum wage. Of course raising minimum wage would help those people. I somewhat agree with you that minimum wage should be increased. For younger people I believe there should be a different minimum wage than there is for older people. As I have said before minimum wage shouldn't be for an adult in his 40s with kids and a wife. The minimum wage jobs should be a start for people, not a permanent job. If we raise the minimum wage for younger people that will give them a good start off to their future endeavors. Then the regular minimum wage of $7.25 should be enforced when they are in their late 20s. You talk a lot about people on minimum wage receiving food stamps and things that cost the taxpayer money. If we raise minimum wage then the Walmarts, Mcdonalds, etc... will raise their prices as a result causing more money to the taxpayer. Food stamps should not go to people who can't find a job or are poor because they are get into trouble with the law. To get food stamps you should prove that you are a good person to society and are actually trying to find a good job. Minimum wage will hurt small businesses too. If we were to raise minimum wage by that much it would hurt small businesses a lot, especially the ones that have a lot of minimum wage employees. I can see how increasing minimum wage for younger people would be good so that they can sustain themselves and worry about getting ready for the real world as opposed to worrying about money. However, if we get adults in their 40s sustaining their families on minimum wage then that becomes a problem because then there is no motivation. In America, you are suppose to have to work hard to obtained a job to support yourself and if you have one a family.\",\n \"Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I am in strong affirmation of the resolution, which states that the national minimum wage should be increased. I will now give my contentions. Contention 1: A $15/hour minimum wage won't result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it -- thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. In 1996, we raised the minimum wage, and businesses predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. (Robert Reich, Professor of Public policy, California University Berkeley) Contention 2: Working full time should produce enough money to support a family. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) Contention 3: By under-paying workers, corporations are shifting the real costs of doing business to the general public. According to a study released this October by the University of California and the University of Illinois, 52 percent of America's fast food workers receive assistance from public programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid, thanks to their poverty-level wages. As a result, taxpayers are contributing $7 billion per year to pick up the cost of supporting these fast-food workers. These taxpayers are paying enormous amounts to support the impoverished employees of Wal-Mart and other giant companies. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution.\",\n \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised First off, you question whether \\\" the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce\\\" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement \\\"raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. \\\" seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : http://www.essortment.com....... \\\"Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. \\\" To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give \\\"merit' or \\\"service\\\" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.\",\n \"February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage It's ok. Hopefully we can debate in the future on minimum wage.\",\n \"Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Thanks for accepting. There are many reasons that the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. 1. Raising the minimum wage will benefit the economy. http://www.cnbc.com... By raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour the economy will raise with it. \\\"The U.S. economy is constituted by 70 percent consumer spending. Raising the national minimum wage would inject as much as $450 billion in the U.S. economy each year, money that entrepreneurs would have the opportunity to chase after. A $15 minimum wage would also save taxpayers an estimated $153 billion a year, according to a study by the University of California, Berkeley. This is because companies that pay low wages force workers to get food stamps and other benefits to help offset their low wages.\\\" http://www.globalresearch.ca... 2. Benefit Americans, Americans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage. \\\"No one deserves to live in poverty. The last 30 years have drastically skewed labor relations in favor of the employer, lowering workers wages, health care, pensions, and job protections in the process, creating massive poverty and economic uncertainty. This dynamic is now considered \\\"normal,\\\" where 30 years ago it was considered a radical anti-worker ideology. A $15 minimum wage is the quickest, most direct route to empower working people, and directly intervene into the labor market on the side of the workers.\\\" http://www.globalresearch.ca... An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130....... Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $9.80 -- about $20,400 for a year of full-time work -- within two years. In subsequent years, the required pay rate would be increased each year by the same percentage that the federal Consumer Price Index rises. http://www.salary.com... 3. Benefit the world. If the US economy stays on it's feet, it will benefit the world economy. Since we learned in point one that raising wages will help the economy, if the economy is benefited the dollar goes up helping much of the world. http://www.worldfinancialwatch.com... In closing. I wish to say more but my internet is going wacky on me. Again I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and I apologize for the time it took for me to get'er done. I personally believe I have stated how and why it is important to raise the minimum wage to $15. Happy AIDS day!\",\n \"$15 Minimum Wage The minimum wage debate played a massive role in the 2016 election, and has swept the nation. I will be advocating against raising the federal minimum wage to $15. My opponent must advocate in favor it. The structure of the debate is simple: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4.\",\n \"Should Minimum Wage Be Raised Honestly, so many people are going bankrupt and are losing their houses with their families along with them, if we raise minimum wage then the money will be equal, it doesn't have to skyrocket, just maybe by like $1.5 - 2.0 then people would be in a more happy mood. you also have to think who this money is going to, for example teachers get paid minimum wage and they have to teach our future geniuses and they should get paid more, or even your own family, how would you like being kicked out of your own house then whatever you use to argue against me right now would effect you?\",\n \"should the government raise minimum wage id say that they shouldn't because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent.\\\"Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so, Jacoby argued, especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore, increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says, in a policy brief.\\\" Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkin's bill has been referred to committee, which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season, action on such a controversial issue is unlikely.\",\n \"should the government raise minimum wage what pro fails to mention is that though I don't mention evidence to support my argument but he don't either he doesn't rebut my claims either. Should the U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15? The issue is nuanced: Raising wages would boost employee paychecks, but it could also cause cost-conscious companies to reduce hiring. But with many states taking independent action to increase wages\\\"and with a $15 federal minimum wage \\\"over time\\\" added to the Democratic Party platform last week\\\"we asked three faculty experts to discuss the implications. Boost jobs through an earned income tax credit, better education, and reduced licensing requirements Erik Brynjolfsson We\\\"ve seen median wages stagnate for almost 20 years in the United States. How can we increase them while also boosting jobs? Here are three ideas: One: expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC; Two: reinvent education; and Three: reduce occupational licensing. Here\\\"s how the EITC works. Suppose that someone is earning $12 per hour, and we\\\"d like to them to earn $15. With an EITC, they\\\"d get an additional $3 per hour worked from the government. The money to pay for this would come from general tax revenue including income taxes, or ideally increased taxes on carbon dioxide\\\" emissions, congestion, and other things we\\\"d like to discourage. One of the benefits of the EITC is that it encourages employers to hire more workers, unlike increasing the minimum wage. That\\\"s important because I\\\"ve been convinced by sociologists like Bob Putnam that work has value beyond the dollars it provides. It\\\"s good for society to keep people engaged in the workforce, and we should be rewarding entrepreneurs and managers who come up with jobs. Another way to increase both wages and jobs is by increasing the educational levels of our workforce. The wage gap between the most and least educated workers has grown enormously since the 1980s, and better-educated workers also have much lower unemployment rates and higher rates of workforce participation. But it\\\"s not enough to simply do more of the same. We need to reinvent education for an age where machines are increasingly doing cognitive tasks\\\"the second machine age. That means a greater emphasis on skills like teamwork, project management, persuasion, leadership, coaching, and creativity. I believe these can be fostered in the right educational settings. Last but not least, we need to reduce unnecessary occupational licensing. Over 25 percent of workers now require a license to do their jobs, a five-fold increase since the 1950s. While some licenses are important for safety or other reasons, research has shown that excessive licensing requirements reduce employment and mobility. Requirements vary widely across states: Michigan requires three years of education and training to become a security guard, while most other states require 11 days or less. Having more people working and earning good wages is good not just for the people we help, but for all of us: People who work are more engaged in community, creating a virtuous cycle. If we do these three things, we\\\"ll be on track to becoming a richer, more engaged, and more dynamic nation. -- ErikBrynjolfsson, professor of information technology and director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy A higher minimum wage, by region Simon Johnson I\\\"m in favor of an increased minimum wage, but there is a valid question of \\\"by how much?\\\" Would you lose jobs as a consequence of increasing the minimum wage above some level? Labor economists have studied this carefully, and while there is no consensus, it\\\"s not difficult to support an increase to $12 per hour on the basis of the available evidence. In areas with higher living costs, a higher minimum wage can make sense\\\"and some states are already planning to phase in $15 per hour over several years. However, especially in less heavily urbanized areas with a lower cost of living, a higher national minimum wage could have unintended consequences, in the sense of reducing hiring and potentially increasing unemployment. -- Simon Johnson, professor of global economics and management A modest, stepwise increase over time Thomas Kochan It\\\"s clearly beyond time to increase the minimum wage. But it\\\"s a political stalemate: It has less to do with economics than politics. Congress has not acted positively on labor legislation for a long time. They block essentially all changes in labor policy, whether it\\\"s increases in wages, updating hourly wage legislation, or in other areas of labor relations law, all of which badly need to be updated. The stalemate has led states to take action on their own. Half the states have recognized the need for an increase. It\\\"s time to catch up. We\\\"re at $7.25, which is ridiculous. My view is that $15 is a reasonable target for the future, but we should raise it in steps at the federal level. An immediate jump to $15 would be too abrupt a change. It could have significant negative employment consequences. If we increased it step-by-step with a goal toward $15 over a period of years, it wouldn\\\"t have significant employment effects. We could start at $10, then go up to $15 over four years. President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against \\\"income inequality.\\\" In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. Studies Mark Wilson, \\\"The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws,\\\" Policy Analysis No. 701, June 21, 2012. Richard V. Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan, \\\"The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation Revisited,\\\" Cato Journal, Vol. 13, no1 (Spring/Summer 1993). Clifford Thies, \\\"The First Minimum Wage Laws,\\\" Cato Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 1991). President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against \\\"income inequality.\\\" In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. The debate over raising the minimum wage has been a hot topic after President Obama explained in his 2014 State of the Union Address that he intends to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, an increase of over 40 percent. While the President and his supporters claim that this increase would greatly benefit the economy and result in no loss of jobs, the opposition claims that this would be detrimental to minimum wage employees, resulting in 500,000 fewer jobs. In the following article, we\\\"re outlining the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage.\",\n \"The minimum wage should be raised I accept the challenge and will debate that we should raise the minimum wage. The resolution or the con speaker did not define or say how far reaching this raise was or how much it will be, so I will debate that this will be a increase on the existing federal minimum wage. I would first like to state the purpose of the minimum wage. It has been and still is needed to prevent a slave like wage for work. FDR, who put the first minimum wage in place, stated that this was needed so people can support themselves. This minimum wage has to change and grow with the gain in inflation and growing cost of living. We still have now that the minimum wage still ends up getting you below the poverty line and in need of welfare programs which is of more cost to or already large deficit. A raise in the minimum wage and its effect on the economy has had a lot of research over it but nothing has come up with much conclusiveness. Many do show that there is a job loss in youth or low-skilled work, though usually only a small amount. However, I would argue that the majority of people will be helped by this increase in wage and the small amount hurt is insignificant. I am not saying that we raise it to 15 dollars an hour, just a modest dollar or two. Over half of the states already have a state minimum wage greater than the federal on so this increase will have little change. The Con speaker has brought up the problem of immigrant and youth workers. The problem is is that those workers are already competing with natives. Yes, immigrants may offer to work less but the work is the same. Many immigrant fill jobs with low supply. Also the change in youth employment would be very negligible and also is a non-issue. Many teenagers are already supported by their parents and the job is mostly for just spending. Many places of work also depend on teenage workers because the supply of older ones are not their, again showing that a raise would not change much. The issues that face black Americans are real and need to be dealt with. It will be with better focus on education and vocational training. Not raising the minimum wage is not a solution to the problem. We must also take into consideration that the raise increase will give more money to lower wage workers who will spend it, and thus, stimulating the economy. The faults in raising the minimum wage are present but there is a net gain in doing so modestly.\",\n \"Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Rules 1. No trolling 2. Please keep some sort of format when responding 3. BOP is shared 4. 1st round is a constructive speech round Definitions Federal minimum wage: The wage set by the American government as the lowest possible wage for American workers set at $7.25 an hour. https://www.dol.gov...... I negate the resolution that the US federal government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for the following contentions: Contention 1: States are much better actors The economies of different states vary drastically for a reason. Certain states may be able to only support one minimum wage due to circumstances such as the labor pool, average education of workers, and how many businesses pay at minimum wage to any of their employees. Mr. Holzer, a previous chief economist of the Department of Labor wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015 and has stated the following: “In a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills – including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants – are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants.” http://www.brookings.edu...... We can see proof of this in the status quo with the failed project in Washington D.C where the minimum wage was raised, which failed miserably as there was little job growth in industries with low-wage workers as well as the fact that benefits and expenses on employees were cut so businesses could stay in the red. http://www.forbes.com...... This gives a valid example of how a minimum wage can actually harm the very people we are trying to help federally, which applies to the whole country. However, individual states are more understanding of their own limitations and can fairly regulate, and possibly raise, the minimum wage to fit the needs of the people while not being too stressful on the job market. A much more reasonable way to fix the problem would be to mandate that states raise the minimum wage by at least five percent, and at most 15%. We could see a moderate increase in revenue for people that could push more people into jobs with a higher incentive to join the labor market. However, as it stands, we cannot pass the resolution on the pretext that we are relying on the federal minimum wage, and not the states. Contention 2: Increase price for consumers Businesses exist for a one, primary goal: to make a profit. So, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see that businesses would be paying more on their employees and less on their products while demanding a higher price to still maintain a profit. A fifteen-dollar minimum wage, which is a huge increase for many states, would no doubt have this affect. In fact, we can look at Breitbart in August of 2015 which shows this exact problem occurring as pizzas, an everyday consumer item, cost thirty dollars at one pizzeria. This is only one example listed in the article. There have been estimates in the article from the National Federation of independent businesses that point out other harms as well as illuminate the problems associated with the minimum wage hike as well which includes the following escribing a possibility of legislation that would come through the state congress in California: “…The state’s 2013 legislation raising California’s minimum wage rate to $9 per hour in 2014 and $10 by 2016 would shrink the state’s economy by $5.7 billion in the next 10 years and would cost the state roughly 68,000 jobs–63% of which would come from small businesses.” http://www.breitbart.com...... We can see another example of this problem if we were to look at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 where it is shown that: “• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle’s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management’s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef. • San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).” https://www.aei.org...... We can clearly see from the examples shown that there is no such thing as a minimum wage that does not affect prices for consumers, showing that there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the personal need of people working the minimum wage and the consumer’s need for affordable goods and services. Since the fifteen dollar minimum wage does not account for this, we need to negate, if only to keep a fair and balanced system that can be tweaked later to bring about better effects. Contention 3: Counter-plan I will concede the following, the minimum wage needs to be increased moderately and on the state level to ensure that the previously mentioned points do not take effect. What also needs to happen is that we need to guarantee that there is a happy medium between the hike of the price for consumer goods and the individual need of money to support families for the people on the minimum wage. That being said, we should also incentivize getting into higher education and high-skilled jobs through prioritizing education in less affluent regions of the country and try to make college more attractive to those who come from poverty. Finally, we need to ensure that small businesses do not fail, so an annual audit of small businesses in all states should be done by the Department of Labor to ensure that progress is being made economically and to combat poverty and raise the standard of living. This will also help determine what states would need higher minimum or lower minimum wages. Until my opponent can refute my counter plan as a worse idea, we can’t pass today’s resolution with a clean conscience as we can tell there is a much better solution that could be enacted. As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution and favor the counter plan instead to ensure that the previous points mentioned will not occur and we can have job security. Thank you.\",\n \"The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States The first round will be to accept this debate The minimum wage has been a major issue recently, with fast food workers calling for it to be raised to $15 an hour. Rules: 1: No cursing, be polite\",\n \"The Minimum Wage Should Not be Raised There should be no minimum wage. In a free market economy it is up to the citizens to decide whether or not a business should stay in power. The higher the minimum wage the more deflation occurs. If we see an abolished minimum wag pretty soon one penny will be worth the equivalent of one dollar. It is this in fact that allowed America to dominate the economic landscape for many years. But with more government control of the economy does not help it, in fact it hurts it. The United States of America should enact this plan. The United States of America will abolish minimum wage laws to protect the interest of small business owners and the average American.\",\n \"Raise Minimum Wage The minimum wage should be raised to $16.97 or more. According to the Huffington Post, the amount of money a full time worker needs to be paid in order to survive in the cheapest county in the US is $10.20.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...\",\n \"Labor Regulations While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a \\\"living wage,\\\" increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.\",\n \"Resolved: Raising the Minimum Wage will do more damage to our economy. For sake of clarity, I will establish my interpretation of the debate topic as: \\\"Raising the federally mandated minimum wage rate will cause more damaging repercussions to the U. S. Economy than not raising the federally mandated minimum wage rate. \\\" If this is not Dpowell's interpretation of their established resolution, I welcome Dpowell the right and ability to specifically define their intended topic within their opening arguments.\",\n \"The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. 3rd round rebuttals 4th round closing arguments and rebuttals LMF will argue that the minimum wage should be raised to fifteen dollars per hour. I will argue we shouldn't.\",\n \"Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. I stand by my view that the US government should not meddle in the payroll of businesses. In history the only thing government has shown it is good at is destroying perfectly good systems. Contention 1 is expansion of economy (http://www.forbes.com...) Let us take for a moment that your views are correct and the minimum wage was increased to $10.10. Businesses are able to support these cost and the world is happy, right? Allow me to ask this; how is it that the business is able to support these new costs? Many would say, \\\"from the revenue that the company makes,\\\" and that is right. The revenue that is used to help and expand the business is what is used. The company is not making more money now it is making the same amount of money but with heavier expenses which would make the economy stagnant. Would it not? However that is in a perfect world because these companies are run by humans. These humans do not like to lose money and therefore counter higher wages with higher prices which merely defeats the purpose of the increase of wages and would only result in inflation. Contention 2 it raises the poverty among the unskilled and those new to the work force (http://americanactionforum.org...) while it would helped some people it would devastate a lot of people who actually need. the very system put into place to help the poor is the very one that will be their ends. this system only works theoretically much like evolution it can only work in theory. The reason it can only be a theory is because theories only have to be plausible and that is all this system is. And this debate is not what you think the minimum wage should be, it is should the government raise the minimum wage. so all your points based off of $10.10 have no foundation in this debate. The government is run by humans and only a humans intention is what matters, based off of you off point about ethics and philosophy, it does not matter how high they raise the minimum rate, right? It only matters the intention and because the government only has our \\\"best\\\" interest they can do anything. that would led to higher and higher minimum with higher and higher inflation rates. eventually ending with inflation to rival Germany in 1923 where 4.2 trillion marks was worth one dollar.\",\n \"Minimum Wage should not increase to $15. Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules:- No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary:The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater.\",\n \"Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. I, Accelerator, hereby accept this challenge in that the US government should not raise the minimum wage. Aschente! (I swear by the rules)\",\n \"We should raise the minimum wage I will accept this argument, and will affirm the resolved in that we should raise the minimum wage.\",\n \"The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 My argumentsMinimum wage should be left up to more local governmentsNot only would I argue that the federal minimum wage should not be raised, but it should not exist at all. Minimum wage should be up to more local governments, such as states. 1) Every state has a different situation, where each one has a different cost of living. 12.50 might be a good fit for some states, but it's not enough for states like California or Hawaii, and it 's way too much for states like Mississippi and Indiana. For a source on the cost of living in each state, here is one[1]2) In addition to every state having a different situation, whenever the federal government passes a law, it affects more people than if the state government did. This means there are more people who would be opposed to the law than if a state government did it. For the purpose of making more people happy, and doing what is popular, it would be better to leave the minimum wage up to states or even more local governments. The more local the government that is making the law, the fewer people you have overall who will be dissatisfied with that law. I am concerned for the opinions of other people, even if they may have an opinion different from mine. I don't like the idea of forcing my views on other people, and the fewer people that I enforce my views on, the better. Why should South Carolinians, who, for the most part, are opposed to the minimum wage, be forced to have the minimum wage by the federal government? Minimum wage increases limit the freedom of workers to choose their wageNow, believe it or not, some workers may want to choose to be paid less than the minimum wage. I can think of at least one reason why: to be competitive. If you feel you can't get a well-paying job, you may make yourself more competitive to businesses by saying you'll work for less than someone else. Why should someone be denied the ability to ask to be paid less than a certain amount? I could name several times where I would have chosen to have a job that pays less than minimum wage. Not only would I get at least a little bit of money, but I would get work experience that I otherwise couldn't have. That would have lead me to get other jobs in the future that do pay well. Instead, what happened in reality because I couldn't find a way to be competitive for jobs, I didn't get a real somewhat permanent job until 4 years into job searching. Imagine how much sooner I could have gotten a somewhat permanent job if I was able to tell employers that I would work for 2 dollars an hour. I could have stayed at that job for a year, then maybe move onto a better job that paid 4 dollars an hour. Then one that pays 6 after a year, then one that pays 8 after another year. This is possible because I would have had work experience behind me from each previous job, and that would have added competitiveness to me. Over all, if I was able to start a job at $2 an hour, I would be earning more money now, in theory. Because I couldn't offer to work for a small amount, it likely hindered my ability to get a job until 4 years into job searching. I bet many other people have this problem: they can't find a job, and would love to work for less just to get work experience so that they can be competitive in the job market. Rebuttals to opponent's argumentsI will put any quotes I use from my opponent in italics, but otherwise I will put in bold the subject.Re: A person working full time should not live in povertyIt should first be noted that the poverty threshold in the United States is $12,082 for a single person[2]. If someone is earning 7.25 an hour and working full time, their yearly salary would be $15,080(I got this number by multiplying 7.25 by 40, the number of hours a week worked, and then multiplied by 52, the number of weeks in a year). A person living on their own is already above the poverty threshold if they work full time on the current federal minimum wage. Now, where they come into poverty is when they are trying to provide for 2 or more people. If we are to have a minimum wage, I think it should just be high enough to keep a single person out of poverty. Minimum wage, low-skill jobs aren't meant for providing for a family. You shouldn't be in a minimum wage job your entire life. If someone is in a minimum wage job for longer than a couple of years, they are probably doing something wrong, and this would be their own fault. Now, I do admit that it's not always the person's own fault for not having a higher-than-minimum wage job, perhaps the job market is very bad. In that case, the solution is for the governemnt to put policies in effect that will help the job market, not necessarily to increase the minimum wage. It should be noted, also, that there are a lot of high-paying careers which have shortages. Why aren't people going into those? Some of them include STEM fields, and the medical field. Granted, they do require education, and I do like the idea of public education to be tuition-free in some way. So, a solution to the problem would be to get education to be tuition-free in some way so that everyone has an equal chance at education. Going back to the issue of a single mother trying to provide for her and children, I would argue the mother was stupid for having children before she could provide for them. Sorry for being so blunt and politically incorrect, but people need to be smart about things. You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them! What kind of monster brings a life into this world that they can't provide for? Why aren't they thinking about how the child's quality of life will be before having it? If they can't make the child's quality of life to be good, then they shouldn't have children. Why should other people be punished for the mistake of a mother who decided to have children they can't afford? Other people, such as me, are punished with a minimum wage. As I said before, I probably could have gotten a job a lot sooner if there was no minimum wage. I bet a lot of other people feel the same way. Now, I won't be completely unsympathetic about the mother, but I think the solution to the problem where a mother is in a situation where they can't afford to provide for herself and her children would be charities. People should voluntarily help her out. Other people shouldn't be punished for the decisions of that mother, which I have the view that other people are punished for it by having a minimum wage. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expensesActually, I don't believe underemployment means that. I always thought it meant you have a job that you're too qualified for, and would be better fit for a job that is better than that one. This is basically what wikipedia says underemployment is[3]Also, all of the problems my opponent talks about can be solved on the local level, keep this in mind. I would like to ask my opponent: why does the federal government need to do minimum wage? Why can't the states handle it? Whether the states have a minimum wage or the federal government does doesn't seem to make a difference in terms of the problems you're talking about. Sources:[1] https://www.missourieconomy.org...[2] http://www.irp.wisc.edu...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Minimum wages should be raised Honestly, minimum wage is fine where it is. If you come at me with how many homeless people there are on the street, I just say \\\"That's their choice.\\\" I know that, sometimes, they can't get a job for various reasons, but if they can't get a job, they aren't important. Minimum wage should not be raised. This would also raise taxes, cause inflation, and make everything cost more, then repeating the process all over again. It's a vicious cycle. Eventually all people will not have enough money. Everybody will run out of money. Society will collapse. It will basically be the purge. And just because of that one dollar raise in minimum wage.\",\n \"should the government raise minimum wage We are now at the point where there is no doubt that I have won this debate and CON has lost. CON concedes that he has no evidence to support his argument in the last round. Therefore, everything he's said so far is out in terms of determining who won this debate. But, worse, CON is wrong that I don't have evidence to support my rebuttals of his claims. Without re-posting a list of links and wasting character space, the judges are encouraged to review the foregoing rounds and see all the evidence I posted. As a point of consideration here: CON should lose the conduct point and the sources point. He should lose the conduct point for lying about the fact that I posted evidence, and he should lose the sources point because he has no sources. He has no links at all, just citations to articles that may or may not exist. Now, regarding the stuff he posted in the last round.... CON asked whether the \\\"U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15?\\\" The question here is whether, as I said above, the US should raise the minimum wage at all. The question here IS NOT HOW MUCH should it be raised. So, in talking about raising the minimum wage by a specific amount, CON is making an irrelevant argument. But there's another problem... and it's much murkier... CON literally stole his argument, verbatim, from this website: http://mitsloan.mit.edu... He did not link his argument to this website. He did not cite to this website. He literally plagiarized, and now must lose this debate for cheating. Like, read the article. It is word for word the same thing. In review, I have proven my side. CON has failed to prove his. I rebutted everything CON said that wasn't plagiarized. CON made no rebuttals at all, and tried to pass off this article (http://mitsloan.mit.edu...) from MIT school of management as his own... as if I wouldn't find it. So, even if you weren't convinced above that I should be winning the conduct point, now you have to be convinced because CON is a cheater.\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be increased So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: \\\"When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today.\\\" These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com...\",\n \"The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 I believe raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit The American economy. Round 1 will be acceptance only. This is my first debate so I don't really know what to expect, but please just be cordial. Thank you.\",\n \"Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)\",\n \"Labor Regulations Even right here on Debate.org, the vast majority of people side with Ben Carson in believing that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment. (See http://www.debate.org...). Beyond that, raising minimum wage across the board (such as the federal mandate proposed by Sanders) would inevitably result in businesses raising goods and services prices to account for the additional money they are spending in payroll which would not only negate any benefit, (maybe people make more, but if they have to spend more - it's a wash) but would also put even more financial strain on middle-class Americans who were meant to benefit from the wage hike in the first place. As businesses start looking to cut costs (to make up for higher wages), it's very likely that benefits (such as paid time off, employee reimbursement, tuition assistance, and other perks) would be drastically reduced or cut. Employees would then have to pay for these expenses out of their own pockets, further reducing their effective take-home pay. Raising the federal minimum wage is not an effective or sustainable way to accomplish the goals that Sanders is fighting for. Although it seems like a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour would improve the financial situation of millions of Americans, it would actually bring about serious negative consequences for businesses, middle-class American families, and our economy as a whole.\",\n \"The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 I would like to clarify that we are talking about the United States' federal minimum wage. Is this correct?But I do accept.\",\n \"The minimum wage should be increased If the national minimal wages were raised then prices in EVERYTHING will go up as well. Gas may go up to $4.50 a gallon \\\"Big Mac's\\\" might raise to $5 Ect.... Not only that, but, students in primary and secondary school will have the idea that going straight out of high school he/she will be making $15 dollars an hour as a cashier at a fast food restaurant, instead of actually getting an education and a respectable job.\",\n \"Living Wage I accept. Per our discussion in the comments, I will be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be raised to $10/hr. We will both assume for purposes of this debate that $10/hr constitutes a \\\"living wage,\\\" regardless of whether in actual fact $10/hr is sufficient to provide for necessities throughout the United States.Good luck.\",\n \"The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Extend arguments and rebuttals.\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be increased You seem to be forgetting that people are forced into living on minimum wage due to the shrinking amount of well paying, high education jobs available. Again, there must be checks. For a Fortune 500 company to cut employees because they are making more per hour shows that, once again, these companies are shady and will do anything to make the big bucks. These people living on minimum wage do not make enough to get by, they lack the ability to break out of this cycle due to the lack of funding that they receive. (1) Quoting from the article: \\\"Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour, would inject an amazing $9.5 billion extra spending power into the economy (this assumes all 3.8 million workers are making exactly $7.25, that each additional dollar earned is spent, and that none of the 3.8 million are earning wages below the federal minimum wage \\\" even though there are 9 states that are below this level or which have no minimum wage law). If the minimum wage were instead raised to where it should be, at least $10 per hour (which would still put it below the minimum wage in 1968), this would release at least $60 billion over two years into the economy.. On top of this, an increased minimum wage may also lead to an increase in the hourly pay of other low-wage workers that only make slightly more than the federal minimum wage. This increased purchasing power across the board helps stimulate the economy and benefits small businesses, many of which were hardest hit by the recession.\\\" As you can see, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the economy and allow for more spending of the individual workers. Currently, these workers do not making enough. Some states do not even have minimum wage, or they offer much lower than the federal wage. The increase would force companies in these states to give minimum wage, and this would in turn increase the purchasing that these workers receive and may even help them out of this deadly cycle of low income. Sources: (1) http://www.timeforaraise.org...\",\n \"Minimum wage should be increased in the US. My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.\",\n \"Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!\",\n \"Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, \\\"No round as agree upon.\\\"If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.No profanity.No trolling.Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.No Kritiks.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Minimum Wage Standard- The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee’s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (http://www.dol.gov...)\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States.RulesBOP is shared1st round acceptanceNo K'sAny violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.\",\n \"The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour This debate regards the following statement:\\\"The minimum wage in the United States should be raised to $15 an hour to support the economy.\\\"I am arguing against the statement and believe that the minimum wage should not be raised so high. My opponent must argue for a $15 minimum wage.\",\n \"The Minimum Wage should be increased. Wow.....maybe I will win in this debate and then challenge you on another motion\",\n \"The minimum wage should be raised The con side has forfeited the 2nd round so I will keep this short to keep it fair. The point of the minimum wage, as put by FDR, is to make sure someone can have a decent level of living. The current minimum wage is a poverty wage and needs to be raised. I do not want 15 dollars but more likely 10 dollars and will be implemented over a long time. The economic downfalls will be negligible and we will end up with a net gain.\",\n \"should the government raise minimum wage The question here is whether the government should raise the minimum wage. CON seems to be talking about the United States, so I'll assume that we're talking about the United States. To win, CON has to prove that the government should NOT raise the minimum wage. On the other hand, I have to show that the government should raise the minimum wage. Current minimum wage in the US is 7.25 USD/hr. Nothing in the resolution says that I have to show how much the minimum wage should be raised. I just have to argue that it should be raised to win. First, I'm going to say why the minimum wage should be raised. Second, I'm going to rebut CON's case. Minimum wage should be raised: 1. Minimum wage should be raised because it does not pay a livable wage which creates an unfair burden on taxpayers and charities. The minimum wage should be raised because keeping the minimum wage where it is creates an unfair burden on taxpayers What basically happens is that because the federal minimum wage only pays $15,080.00/yr government benefits and private charities have to pick up the difference between \\\"what minimum wage-paying employers pay their employees\\\" and \\\"what it costs employees to survive\\\". Chris Lu, former deputy secretary of labor under the Obama administration writes in Time that: \\\"the federal minimum wage amounts to just $15,080 a year for full-time work. That translates into declining living standards, reduced economic mobility and a shrinking middle class. It mires workers and our economy in an impoverishing cycle created by inadequate pay. Far too many workers earning minimum wage turn to government assistance and food pantries to make ends meet. \\\" (Source: . http://time.com...) When workers earning the minimum wage have to turn to government assistance and private charities like food pantries to make ends meet, that means that corporations are passing off the external cost of employee labor to society and to taxpayers. This is basically a corporate handout that comes out of the pockets of hard working taxpayers, which is an unfair burden to place on society. The minimum wage should therefore be raised to alleviate this unfair burden on taxpayers. 2. Raising the minimum wage will stimulate economic growth. Economic growth in the service sector has not grown as fast as should have because the amount of disposable income for the majority of working Americans has not kept up with inflation. To illustrate, the minimum wage of 1968 would be $10.90 today. Except the problem is that inflation has exceeded minimum wage increases by a third. (Source: . https://www.pbs.org...) PBS reports that the unemployment rate was 3.6 percent in 1968 with a higher real minimum wage. (same source) So, that means that the unemployment rate is higher today \\\" at 5 percent \\\" than it was in 1968, while the real minimum wage is lower today than it was in 1968. Part of the reason for that is because consumers had more disposable income then, than they do now. By increasing the minimum wage, working consumers will have more money to spend locally, which they will (see source from Time above) and that will result in economic growth. One implication of that growth will be increased jobs. CON doesn't really have individual arguments, so I'll just rebut the ideas he talks about: CON claims that \\\"A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. \\\" This is false. Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains that a higher minimum wage minimum \\\"won\\\"t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it \\\" thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. )\\\" (Source: . http://robertreich.org...) The only way that a higher minimum wage would harm business owners is if revenues didn't keep up with the increased cost of labor. The problem with that assumption is that it ignores the second-order implication of a higher minimum wage: more domestic economic spending, which would result in increased revenues, as the sum of the available literature suggests would be the case. CON claims: \\\"And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent. \\\" Again, this is wrong for the same reason as stated above. Increases in disposable income are going to translate into increased local spending, which will increase revenues and likely increase profits overall. In order to make the argument that companies wouldn't be able to hire more people, you have to assume that the only part of the business's account sheet which would change is how much they have to pay their employees. Except, the evidence above shows that this is false because of predictable increases in economic activity. (The Time and Robert Reich article) CON Claims: \\\"Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so\\\" This has absolutely nothing to do with the minimum wage. If young workers want to gain experience and are willing to work for substandard wages, they can still take unpaid internships. The minimum wage has nothing to do with that issue. (. https://www.forbes.com..., discussing unpaid internships). More importantly, as Reich explains, \\\"Most low-wage workers aren\\\"t young teenagers; they\\\"re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. \\\" So, talk of teenagers is a red herring more or less for this issue. CON further claims \\\"increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. \\\" CON doesn't cite to this source so it automatically should be struck; he just makes a vague reference to it. But the question isn't whether increasing the minimum wage is \\\"proven\\\" to lower the poverty rate, because we're not talking about a specific amount to raise the minimum wage in this debate. To illustrate, if we raised the minimum wage by 0.01 USD, then that obviously would have very little if any impact on ameliorating poverty of any kind. The question is whether or not raising the minimum wage is a good idea or not. The evidence I've provided shows that it is, because raising the minimum wage will increase the standard of living, which (implicitly) means reducing poverty.\",\n \"Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions:Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement.\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be increased But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: \\\"Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district.\\\" This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: \\\"The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix \\\" at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California.\\\" (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...\",\n \"The Minimum Wage should be increased. The Minimum Wage must be increased. Republicans claim it to be a \\\"job killer\\\", but they obviously do not know anything about how the American economy works. No person working full-time should have to live in poverty. It is most unfortunate that this is occuring right this instant. Entry-level employees make a certain amount of money an hour, they work full-time, they come home and try to support themselves and their families. With a Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour (it is higher in some states), supporting yourself and your family would be nearly impossible. This is only my main point. Please allow me to elaborate in the next round.\",\n \"The Minimum Wage should be Raised Many people in the US are thinking over this new bill. Which has already been passed in a couple different states. The basic overview of it is that; the minimum waige should be raised to $9.00. Now this may seem like a great idea, but can you imagine what this would do to our teens, and pre-teens? It is very apparent that if you raise the pay of an employee, than his/her boss will want the employee to work harder. So if you raise minimum waige, you will decrease the ammount of teens working in the economy. Therefore destroying the teenage dream of simply earning some extra money. This would ruin the chances for over 20 million kids to find work.\",\n \"Minimum wages should be raised How do you think a mother feels when her child goes up to her and tells her that she does not want a birthday present because that child knows that her mother can not afford to buy her a birthday present? What if I tell you that if the minimum wage was raised that this mother and many like her can afford to buy a birthday present for their daughter's birthday? Many believe that the minimum wage should not be raised because small businesses can not afford to pay employees more that the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, or waiters/waitresses for example, who get tips earn $2.13 per hour. This translates into an average of $ 14,500 a year for a full time worker. Another reason that people say that the minimum wage can not be raised is that if the federal minimum wage is raised then the prices of goods and services also increase. Many also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. People argue that small businesses can not afford to pay employees more and as a result will end up firing many employees. This is just not true. In July of 2015 a survey found out that 60% of small business owners support a gradual increase to the minimum wage of $12.00. This survey also reports that small business owners preferred this because an increase of income would put money into the pockets of low- wage workers who will then spend the money on goods and services. This boost in demand will stimulate the economy and help create job opportunities. In fact, the White House published an article called Raise the Wage and it states that raising the minimum wage nationwide will benefit local economies and support millions of workers. Many people also say that the federal minimum wage should stay the same because if the minimum wage goes up then other prices will increase as well, and as a result everything becomes more expensive. Some states have placed rules in recent years causing increases in their minimum wages to help keep up with the already rising inflation. The federal minimum wage does not operate that way. According to the Department of Labor in their article Minimum Wage Mythbusters, in order for the federal minimum wage to increase it has to gain approval from Congress and the President. The plan is to gradually increase the minimum wage so it has time to adjust automatically with inflation. This will help low income families keep up with prices of the cost of living. People also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. What these people are thinking that the federal minimum wage is going to be raised immediately. In reality what President Obama wants to do is to raise the minimum wage in increments until it eventually reaches $15.00 per hour. He wants to do this because if he tells the whole country to pay their workers $15.00 per hour, employers will not have a chance to adjust to this sudden change. But if he asks to slowly raise the wage of employees, then employers will have the time to adjust. This way no jobs are lost. In fact 600 economists studied that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on employment of minimum-wage workers including at times of weakness in the labor market. Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) in an article called Why we Should Raise the Minimum Wage published on CNBC\\\"s website on April 27, 2015,he states that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from $7.25 per hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.\",\n \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say \\\"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\\\", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that \\\"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.\\\"\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be increased While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org\",\n \"Raise the minimum wage I accept. Small raises in the US federal minimum wage is beneficial to low wage employees and has never been shown be a financial detriment to the US economy or employers, when spaced out over spans of time.\",\n \"Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.\",\n \"Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Resolved: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Shared burden of proof.\",\n \"Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Lame.... I strongly urge for a Con ballot.\",\n \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase \\\"overall costs\\\" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the \\\"overall costs,\\\" and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a \\\"negative ripple through the economy,\\\" I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in \\\"overall costs\\\" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)\",\n \"The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.\",\n \"The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Full Resolution - Resolved: The United States should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.Rules:Do not trollNo semanticsKritiks of the topic are unaccepableVulgarity is unacceptableRefrain from utilizing a counterplan - debate the resolution as it isMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere throughout the course of the debateIf necesssary/applicable, sources may be provided via an external linkFailure to comply with any of the above mentioned rules results in an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1: - Con: Rules- Pro: Acceptance and Initial Arguments/CaseRound 2:- Con: Opening Arguments/Case- Pro: RebuttalsRound 3:- Con: Rebuttals- Pro: Defense and RebuttalsRound 4:- Con: Defense and Rebuttals- Pro: Waive RoundDefinitions:The resolution should be self-explanatory. To avoid dispute or ambiguity:Ought: refers to obligation or logical consequence/necessity [1]I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......\",\n \"Do anything I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)\",\n \"Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I am Gatermouth, and I believe the minimum wage should be raised. I hope my opponent accepts this challenge.\",\n \"The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. I'm sorry my argument is stupid >< I didn't have enough time to research it correctly. I'm just going to say that It would help people who are working very hard but struggling to pay the bills.\",\n \"The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.SOURCE: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...;\",\n \"Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn\\\"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased\",\n \"Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. Your personal opinion has nothing to do with this debate \\\" Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.\\\" Deals with what the politicians want to raise the minimum wage to not what you want it as. The government will not raise it to $10 they will raise it above that as I have argued. Even if they were to raise it to $10 it would still be bad. take for example a business, this business pays it's employees livable wages and all is good. however if that minimum wage is raised then what is the point of paying someone $10 to bag food at the local convenience store, clean the halls of a building, or flip burgers. It is not economical nor is it logical; if I have to pay my employees more for average performance then I would fire the under performing one's that I could have afforded before and keep the more skilled hard working ones. then I would just replace the expandable labor with machines, because they would cost cheaper in the long run. But keep believing that business owners will just keep paying lazy people foe crap performance. You want to pay people at Walmart $10 an hour, be my guest, just don't expect there to be Walmart there or that it will help the economy with it's donations like it has been doing.\",\n \"The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated.\",\n \"Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. My opponent has forfeited... extend arguments. :)\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be increased The minimum wage increasing will allow more people to have more money, stimulating the economy and helping citizens who are currently in poverty reach out of it, take a foothold, and stay in the middle class. (1) These workers are not making enough to live on in this economy, and they need more. Unfortunately, jobs are very limited due to our ever rising population. (2) There has been discussion about how increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, and this is always a fear but unfortunately for this side; increasing the minimum wage and increasing prices would be disaster for these companies. The more money they have, the more they are willing to spend on luxury goods and more expensive food. This would increase sales and return on investment for companies. They must be made aware of this, and there must be checks in place to protect the costumers from overzealous companies and organizations. Most of the big names who are against the minimum wage increasing, tend to be owners, backers, or stockholders of very large companies that have had very shady practices regarding the minimum wage. Such as Walmart, McDonald's, etc. (1) http://www.postcrescent.com... (2) http://www.salary.com...\",\n \"Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.\",\n \"Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I accept this challenge and negate the resolution which is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage.\",\n \"The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.\",\n \"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.\",\n \"Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to All points extended. I'll let my opponent decide what he's doing in his final round.\",\n \"The minimum wage should be increased Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post \\\"no round, as agreed upon\\\" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.\",\n \"Raise The Minimum Wage I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level.Con will argue the opposite.\",\n \"The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":38,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should the death penalty be allowed?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["death penalty\nTo explain the idiotic forfeit, my mom stole my computer which forced me to forfeit. Sorry about that. Give my opponent the conduct point. 1st, just because most Americans are pro-death penalty does not mean that we should do what they say. 139 countries having abolished it after using capital punishment for 10 or more years compared to 58 nations actively using it today. Just because the people agree with something does not mean it should be allowed! This is just an example which does not have to be true: If the majority of the people think that mosques should not be allowed to be built in all circumstances, does it make what they said right? This is a huge problem! People assuming that whatever the majority of the people believe, it's always right and that we should do what they say. 2nd of all, the concept that it deters crime does not account for many things. How does capital punishment save lives? Is my opponent honestly saying that because the USA allows death penalties that it prevents crime? Crime is the greatest in the USA even though the USA have the death penalty and executed the 5th most people in the world recently. Many people are not affected by the death penalty as to see that it depends on what kind of crimes they are but many people would rather be able to gain money, drugs, revenge, or something addicting by doing a crime even though of the risks. They don't think of the consequences but they just do it without thinking or considering the death penalty. Just because all of the people that you have said believes that the death penalty deters crime can not beat back the 87% of expert criminologists who say that the death penalty does not help deter crime at all and the 88% of the top criminologists who say that the abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on crime rates. Also For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9. Also all of the top 10 states with crime all have the death penalty. It's also not biased in the size of the state rather per 100,000 people. In 2008, 14 states without capital punishment were either at or below the national homicide rates. So all of your supposed \"facts\" in this contention are all wrong because they can't beat back all of these points that I have been showing to you. Also there can be and there has been wrongful executions. As many as 39 people in the U.S. have been executed from 1992 to 2004 because of the death penalty. 138 death row defendants were released since 1973 because of wrongful convictions and withheld papers. That is extremely unfair because of costing one's life just because of the death penalty. Even being in jail because of a misjudgement is better than being executed in the case of a misjudgement. Plus the death penalty is racially biased. 77% of death row defendants are executed for killing a white person but half of the victims are black. . I have so many more points I would like to make and also go into detail about many of them but I have to move on to the other contentions. 3rd of all, the death penalty doesn't actually give any closure to victim families. Sure, the victim's families may hate the defendants and want to hurt them but the death penalty doesn't actually help them feel any better. Let's take a look at Achilles when he lost his best friend Patroclus in the Trojan War. He was dissatisfied with all of the slaughtering of the Trojans and the torturing and killing of the killer Hector but was still empty until the day that he wept for an entire night with the killer's father. Sure, loss of friends and family members will always be a sad thing but the killing of the murderer doesn't necessarily put back what the people close to that victim have lost. The families will never totally recover and revenge by the death penalty is from the government is not going to put an \"ending chapter to this mess\". I also ask my opponent to tell me how many murderers in jail until they die have escaped and haunted the family. Also about releasing killers, would you give me some facts please? I have made my point that the death penalty has no significant effect and will never put an \"ending chapter to this mess\" on the people close to the murdered person. 4th of all, is justice served if he has to live in jail for the rest of his life? Yes! Justice is not better served by death penalty than living in jail for the rest of your life. Death is getting executed but life in jail till death is everyday torture knowing you will live the rest of your life in a cell. I would say life in jail till death serves justice better than the death penalty because if you die, you die. No more suffering, pain, hardships. None of the bad things or good things. But life in a prison cell until death is torture for many years to come. 5th of all, if God doesn't tell us to do the death penalty why should we do it. The fist two verses are from the Old Testament which is specifically God the Father wanted the Israelites to use capital punishment because there was no other way to do it. If you disagree with that statement, I bet you $10 (not $10,000 like Romney but $10 like Gingrich) thats you won't be able to find another way to punish a murder or death that is not capital punishment during their time which is an estimated to be after Ahmose and before Assyrians and Babylonians take over Israel and Judah. Also few people would use the capital punushment as the Old Testament says such as doing work on the Sabbath, false prophecy or making false statements about a woman's virginity. In the 3rd verse, it clearly doesn't mean a literal meaning. It means that Christians must not use their freedom from the Old Testament religious Law as an excuse to violate the civil law. We must obey civil authority, which is instituted by God, because of fear of punishment as well as conscience. The principles set forth by Jesus and the apostles restrict punishment to only that which is necessary to protect society and rather than giving. Jesus taught great principles for us to apply in our lives, rather than specific laws. Thus, his failure to specifically condemn slavery, capital punishment and many other evils should not be interpreted as approval of capital punishment. I see the mercy He showed to the woman caught in adultery as His rejection of capital punishment. However, Jesus never specifically repudiated capital punishment. Even if you want to go by the Old Testament which is totally irrelevant, the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 says \"Though shall not kill.\" The original Hebrew word ratsach, translated as \"kill\" or \"murder\" could refer to either killing in general or unlawful killing (murder). This is only if you want to argure the irrelevant way. 6th of all, \"it is constitutional\" is not a good reason. The Constitution has been changed so much and is always debated about if a part is correct or not. Just because our current law says that doesn't mean that it's right. If a country's \"constitution\" says that slavery is allowed, is that right? There are many flaws in every country's laws and this is one of them. 7th of all, the death penalty costs and diverts much more resources from genuine crime control and more expensive than alternative sentences. Death penalty is not at all cheap but expensive. The death penalty does cost a lot and may be more than life in jail but it depends on the time. Death penalty costs a whole lot on a one time event, life in jail costs a little every year so that is why death penalty is more expensive because it's a one time event.I have negated all of my opponent's contentions and have made my own points in the crowded rebuttal of my 2nd contention. Vote Con! My sources are in the comments section because lack of space.","The Death Penalty should be Abolished\nThe death penalty is necessary, because some people are so vile they can never be in contact with society without harming it in some way. Truly evil people do exist and they harm others - sometimes killing or ruining lives through their actions. This is not something that should be acceptable or allowed to continue without punishment to deter others with a like mentality.","The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty\n\"Is it really just bare assertions? IS that not how philosophy woks?\" A. You made a claim the death penalty works to deter crime using a quote, but didn't cite a source so we could review the study, therefore we can disregard that, since you did not give us a chance to check its validity. \"If just a jail time deters people, what more would death penalty?\" A. I have no clue what you really mean there, but you were making a point that having the death penalty increases the rate at which violent criminals are found and arrested which is completely asinine itself and then gave no evidence for this. Well your source is 46 pages long, I won't bother. However, I think my evidence that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is enough. \"...affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals. I do not agree with the rational choice theory because if it was true, then the evidence would show that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates. \"Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd like to refute your second part.\" A. I did give you evidence, I gave you a graph (or a link to it) that shows states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, so clearly it has not been very effective as a deterrent, but I could give you more. The opinions of top criminologists: A study conducted by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock surveyed some top criminologists in the country, criminologists who won the Sutherland award at the American Society of Criminology, and and presidents of the society since 1997. The study found that when asked if they believe the death penalty is a deterrent, 88% of them said no, while only 5% said yes, with 7% being indifferent. What we can conclude from this is some of the best criminologists in the country actually believe the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. But it gets worse, when asked if they thought there was good empirical evidence to support it is a deterrent... 94% said no, so even many criminologists who believe the death penalty works as a deterrent agree there is not much evidence to support that claim. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... The opinions of police chiefs: In a 2009 study, police chiefs in the country were surveyed on if they believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, 37% said yes, while 48% said no. So both criminologists and police chiefs agree, no it does not work as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... North Carolina empirical evidence: No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006, and the last death penalty sentence was given in 2012. However, since execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined. If cons argument was true then murder rates would have went up. Also, another comment on the rational theory thing earlier, most people given the death penalty do it \"...in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness.\" So the idea that all people considering homicide think rationally is asinine. http://nccadp.org... I could have even more at the request of con. \"False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give all the credits to the death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced.\" A. No but come on man, if that was true, states with the death penalty would have decreased in homicide rates, while states without it would have remained stagnant. But this just isn't true. Since all states declined, and states without the death penalty actually declined at a faster rate, we know this is false. If the death penalty deterred homicide, then those states would have decreased at a faster rate, but they decreased at a slower rate. \"But from the graph, you can see that death penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates.\" A. But pal if what your saying had any validity, then since the death penalty deters crime better than life sentences, than those states would have dropped faster, but they dropped slower, and the margin of higher homicide in those states actually grew. What we understand from this is that whatever caused crimes to decrease was not the death penalty, as that would have led to a very high decrease with your logic, but it was actually a slower rate than states without the death penalty. \"As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you.\" A. Me making that point was mostly me just saying that if it is for retribution but sometimes innocent people get killed it is clearly counter productive. If you are trying to say that innocent people getting killed with the death penalty, then it's wrong, I gave evidence for that. \"Accidentally executing innocent people will be rebutted in a whole different header.\" A. OOoohhhhhhh scary. To clarify there has been about 23 people that have been proven to be innocent, but there is most likely much more that slipped through the cracks, as hundreds have been exonerated. \"How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more the beginning of my round... Without any evidence all I can say is saying the death penalty costs u to 5 times more.\" A. Here they pretend like I gave no evidence that the death penalty costs more, which is 100% inaccurate. But I will do it again. First let me explain why a capital punishment case costs more, in a capital punishment case: two attorneys are required paid at a higher price and a team of legal experts, extra payments to jurors, the expense of appeals and sentencing hearings, and the cost to house people convicted, where prisoners much actually stay in special units that cost more for extra security, some times for decades. So this is why the death penalty costs more, now the numbers again. http://nccadp.org... The death penalty costs between $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case, for the reasons I stated, while an average life sentence of 40 years in prison costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. http://okcadp.org... So yes it does cost more. \"Furthermore, pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea.\" A. Well if the death penalty is in practice, (which I don't agree with) then it should be at a state level. However this is irrelevant because we are arguing over is the death penalty a good idea as it is practiced in the U.S today. Look I already gave you empirical and logical evidence as to why murder rates go down with our without the death penalty, and recent history shows they actually decrease much faster without the death penalty, as the margin between states with the death penalty homicide rates and ones without has actually grew larger from 1990 to 2014. So what my opponent says at the end is fundamentally flawed, as his evidence is simply when the death penalty started murder rates decreased in those states, but from the fact that this trend went on in states with and without the death penalty we can conclude this was not due to the death penalty. Whether the death penalty is evil or not is subjective.","Death Penalty\nIn response to Pro\"s argument, I will present two main points that will potentially negate the idea that the death penalty should be legal. First I will talk of the death penalty\"s effectiveness and lastly my main opinion on why we should get rid of the death penalty all together. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, I will address the common argument for supporting the death penalty. Some people tend to believe that the death penalty is effective in lowering crime rates, but I will prove why this is wrong. Although crime rates overall have been decreasing, it has no concrete relation to the use of the death penalty. According to FBI statistics from 2012 to 2013, the number of violent crimes had decreased by 4.4 percent (1). While this is an amazing thing for our country, the crime rates have decreased everywhere, even in states without the death penalty. Graph-> http://s3.amazonaws.com... (I am not sure if this link will show up since my others didn't, but it just shows the 15 states without the death penalty, and the 35 states with it). This map of the U.S. shows us that a large majority of the states have legalized the death penalty. So, according to many peoples\" arguments, these states should have lower crime rates, right? This isn't so. According to an article in the Huffington Post based on statistics gathered from the FBI, 8 of the top 10 most dangerous states in the U.S. are all states that have legalized the death penalty, with the highest being Tennessee at an average of 643.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people (2). Also, according to another article, the top 2 safest states in the U.S. are both states without the death penalty (3). Now let\"s look take a look at crime rates in other countries without the death penalty as well, more specifically, our neighbor Canada. When looking at the comparison of crime rates between Canada and the U.S., a startling thing jumps out at you, Canada\"s crime rates are significantly lower. The United States\" crime levels are 43% higher, the murder rate is 23 times more, the rape rate is 16 times more, and so on (4). While this doesn't truly prove that having no death penalty is more effective, it does negate the need for a death penalty at all. So, if the death penalty isn't helping lower crime rates (by scaring people into refraining from violent acts), then why do most people believe it should be allowed? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question above takes me into my next point. The reason some people believe it should be allowed is for the simple fact that they hate the criminal for what he/she has done. And they wish to obtain revenge. Although this person has killed or raped/molested another human, that should not condone giving them a death sentence. Killing this human being will not bring back the person that they killed. It will not right their wrong. How, in any way, are we teaching people that murder is wrong if we turn around and do it ourselves? More often than not, life in prison is even worse for a criminal. If we restrict what criminals of capital crimes can do within a prison to working, sleeping, and eating (no Internet for criminals of capital crimes like many prisons have today), we may be able to work on crime like murder without losing our humanity. Also, like my opponent stated before, there are some cases where a criminal was actually found to be innocent after being put to death. Faults like these can be avoided if the death penalty wasn't legal. Likewise, if we get rid of the death penalty, our country will save money as well because cases involving the death penalty are often around twice as much money than cases involving a life-sentence in prison (5). The country must take action with supporting humane ways to deal with criminals of capital offense and must implement counseling for all criminals. We should also encourage classes in high schools across the country to bring awareness to crimes such as murder and rape, and why these crimes should not be committed. We need to bring awareness to these actions, especially since they are seen as socially unacceptable to talk about, so most kids will grow up to be mindful of how serious these crimes are. Instead of going blind to our wrath and using the death penalty, our country must work together to lower crime rates (granted there will ALWAYS be crime) without being hypocrites and condoning the killing of criminals of capital punishment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, the death penalty should be illegal because it doesn't decrease the rate of crimes, and killing criminals out of anger (and a want for revenge) will not support the idea that murdering is wrong, due to the hypocrisy behind the idea. Back to you, Pro :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)\"Decrease in Violent Crimes and Property Crimes.\" FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. http://www.fbi.gov... (2)McCormack, Simon. \"America's Most Dangerous States, Based On Law Street's Analysis Of FBI Crime Statistics.\" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Aug. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (3)Frohlich, Thomas C., and Alexander Kent. \"The Safest States In America.\" 24/7 Wall Street. 2 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. http://247wallst.com... (4)\"Canada vs United States Crime Stats Compared.\" NationMaster.com. Nation Master. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. http://www.nationmaster.com... (5)\"Costs of the Death Penalty.\" Costs of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center, 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... *Hopefully my links will show up this time, but I cited my sources just in case","Death penalty\nThe expression an \"eye for an eye\" is a prescription for proportional justice and capital punishment","Criminals fear death and the death penalty\nPro Death Penalty Webpage - Abolitionists also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death because they do not take time to think about the consequences of their acts. If that were true, then I wonder how police officers manage to arrest criminals without killing them. When a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and tells him to get on the ground, the criminal will comply fully in the vast majority of of these cases. Why would they do that unless they were afraid of the lethal power of the gun? It is because regardless of what abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune to fear! It is a common misconception to believe that fear is a thought process that has to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks in when one is faced with lethal force! The examples below should confirm that point.","Death penalty\n\"Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate.\" My opponent has failed to explain why any kind of death penalty should be abolished. My opponent did not specify before the debate started that the topic of death penalty was only limited to its current use in the United States. My opponent wishes to make known of his intentions AFTER the debate started. I find this to be an irresponsible condition opposed upon me by my opponent because I accepted this debate only on the conditions of which were supplied at the time of acceptance. At the time, I was accepting the position of 'Pro' for A death penalty. Notice how neither the title of the debate nor anything written in the comments section before the debate started includes anything specific that says \"Resolved: The current death penalty system instituted in the United States should be abolished\". I am within my bounds to be arguing for a death penalty, not THE death penalty. In this case, I would like to supply some definitions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Death - a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life [1] Penalty - 1. A legal sentence. 2. A punishment for violating rules of procedure. [2] Punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. [3] Voluntary - done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution. [4] Recidivism - the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. [6] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The definition of a death penalty can be construed from the definitions above as a legal sentence subjecting a person to death. My stance on the subject of a death penalty is that a death penalty should remain in the United States, but it should be entirely different than the current death penalty. A decision to undergo the death penalty should be a voluntary choice made by a convict who would have the option of life in prison or death. I have no doubt that a portion of criminals sentenced to life in prison would rather opt for the death penalty than a life sentence. This is evident by the fact that a large number of murder-suicides occur in the United States in which after a person commits murder, they take their own life. The source and evidence for this argument is listed in the first round of the debate. R1: Cost \"SO your \"the defendant chooses\" is false. The judge in the end chooses, defendant just gets to plea to try to weaken the sentence.\" It is most definitely not false. In a voluntary death penalty, the defendant WOULD be able to choose. Remember, the argument is not about the current US death penalty, but is about A death penalty. So it is the trial itself under the DP that is expensive. That is what I have said all along. A voluntary death penalty would eliminate the bulk of the cost that it takes to execute a criminal because the legal appeals process which costs the most money would be eliminated. The appeals process exists because convicts who are fighting the state do not want to receive the death penalty. The people who would fight the death penalty in the future would not be sentenced to the death penalty in a voluntary death penalty, they would be sentenced to life in prison, therefore eliminating the appeals process in death penalties that costs the most amount of money in the current death penalty in the US. Also you concede that the DP costs more. I stated that the current death penalty costs more. A voluntary death penalty would cost so much less than the current death penalty, and would cost less than life in prison simply because the costs for food, health and shelter would amount to $0 after the criminal is executed. The states would actually save $1.5 million in living costs per convict if the convict opts for the voluntary death penalty over life in prison [5]. R2: The death penalty does not deter crime. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. Fantastic. Then if deterrence isn't a major issue in deterring crime, then why are you debating that the death penalty doesn't deter crime if any other form of punishment isn't made to deter crime either? If the sole purpose of rules of law aren't even made to deter crime, you have just defeated your own argument. You make it seem that deterrence is a negligible issue. R3: The DP infringes international law. I agree with your statements on the current death penalty. But not all death penalties would violate this law. A voluntary death penalty would allow a convict to have more personal liberties than the current death penalty and a convict would also have the right to life or death based on his choice. R4: Risk of executing innocents I fail to see how an innocent person would want to opt for death under a voluntary death penalty. Even so, it's a person's right to life or death and a government shouldn't be infringing on 'international law' that you cite in this debate because it would infringe on liberty of the person to govern their own body. R5: Death sentences are racist and unfair \"Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate.\" Like I said above, I am arguing for A death penalty, not the current death penalty. You did not specify that as a condition of the debate when I accepted the debate. Therefore you MUST convince the voters that the United States would be better off without a death penalty, and I am convincing the voters that the United States would be better with A death penalty. Notice that the topic is simply 'Death Penalty' and that you did not provide any additional information to what your resolution was for the debate. Therefore I am obligated to argue within my bounds, and my bounds are that I am arguing for a Death Penalty in the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In conclusion, the United States would be better off with a voluntary death penalty than without one at all. - It would be cheaper than life imprisonment by saving 1.5 million dollars per inmate. - It would give the convict the right to make a decision on their continuation of life. - It would eliminate the possibility of the criminal from being released back into society and committing recidivism. Voters: Because the debate resolution later admitted by my opponent was not provided at the beginning of the debate, I strongly urge you to base your decision on who convinced you more on the argument that a death penalty of some kind is better or worse than any kind of death penalty at all. I hope that after reviewing all of the debate, you make the right decision and vote Pro! :) Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wiktionary.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.heartsandminds.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...","death penalty\nYes because it is just and prevents those rapists and terrible criminals from further harming our society","We should redo the death penalty.\nI want to say thank you Amphia for your willingness to continued to do this debate. You made some very good points. And I'm more than happy to go deeper on this propose discussion. Now of course my proposal for a re-do of the death penalty will be limited. I don't think you fully understand this. But that's fine i will explain this further. You may very well disagree regardless. I will defend what I'm proposing. Trail cost \"But how do you define \"know for sure\"? In the case of mass shootings, it\"s going to be pretty obvious who did it\". I think you answer your own question to this. Oh how do you know for sure? Because it will be\" obvious who did it in cases of mass shootings. This re-do of the death penalty will ONLY target these cases not much else. And yes it will TARGET children being tortured too. I will admit in those cases it will take some time, just like right now. But after the case, and these person or persons are convicted of these crimes. Then it will be death for them. No waiting around just a week or two after being convicted. So, it will still be saving in the long run. I understand in children being tortured cases it will take a little longer. It will take 2 or 4 years. But after that. It will be a fast sentence. Honestly, i don't not know why they should stay alive in jail for who ever knows how long. Just because it morally wrong. They Actually did the morally wrong thing by torturing their children or somebody elses. You still give no answer why they should stay alive in jail. It doesn't add up, for them to stay in jail for the rest of there lives. It will still cost money to feed them, give them medical attention and give them medication. It still add millions of dollars to keep them alive in the long haul. Doesn't make sense to.... Mass murder \"Serial killers like the Zodiac is still out\" Yeah okay. Justice can't prosecute if they don't have that person. Not everyone going to get caught, unfortunately. But these cases are rare. Just like this guy I going to bring up \"He\"s blamed for 12 killings, 45 rapes \" and authorities don\"t know who he is\" but \"Investigators have matched the East Area Rapist's DNA\".(10) http://wgno.com... So, this mean when and if they find this guy. The evidence will be overwhelming, and will not have a problem getting a conviction. But you did bring up another good point. In cases of a Serial killers, it will take longer than a two week period. It may take a year or two. But after they find these Serial killers guilty. It will not be a problem to sentence them to death within a two week time period. You said this \"You\"re going to let the person walk?\" the answer is of course not. In Serial killers cases it may take some time. But when the court has this person it will wait for a trail. And it will wait for the evidence to grow. Then it will wait on what the jurors decide. So, yes it could a little time just like now. But in this re-do the death penalty it will not have any Appeals. Appeals just cost too much. And in my proposal we are looking for the mass shootings as the main concern here. \"Black people are more likely to be accused and jailed for crimes they did not commit\" Again in my propose new system it not after the everyday crime. It only after the mass shooting, serial killers and children being tortured. \"56 out of 97\" were white who committed mass shootings. That a 57% white people doing these mass shootings (11) https://www.statista.com... Another pretty interesting stat 'In approximately 90 percent of all homicides the killer and victim are from the same race\".(12) https://www.psychologytoday.com... No my system will not end racism. Better education will one day hopefully end racism. But in regards to what i actually meant. The new proposal for the death penalty is only in three main categories. And i already mention what they are. So, really blacks would be in the minorities in these three categories. Now for everyday crime yeah blacks would be very high same with Latino. But my proposal only cover mass shootings, serial killers and children being tortured to death. \"wrongfully convicted people who don\"t get a chance to appeal\" Again my system only target three main area. And that's it. It not for every crime. Heck it not even going to cover somebody murdering one another. And that what happen in my cases dealing with just one murder or even two murders. My system is for more serious crimes three people being killed or higher. \"Not humane to let them stay in jail\" They proof Solitary Confinement in prisons cause more psychology problem. According to Craig Haney who wrote an article on \"Mental health issues in long-term solitary and \"supermax\" confinement\" he added \"There are few if any forms of imprisonment that appear to produce so much psychological trauma and in which so many symptoms psychopathology are manifested.\"(13) page 125http://journals.sagepub.com... a lot of other proof that it causes more harm. You said \"maybe there is hope for them\" they is no hope for the criminals I'm referring too. Not the mass murdered and serial killers. I think you getting them confused. Acting like killing 10 or more people is okay, and let them just sit in jail for the rest of they days.\" \"WHO ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE WHETHER THEIR LIFE IS WORTH LIVIN OR NOT\" As for me i'm just telling society another good option on dealing with these horrible people. You making me look like I'm the bad person here. And reality it just the opposite. They committed these horrible crimes not me. And now you want the taxpayers to pay for there every need for the rest of there lives. There lives are worthless the second they started killing 5 to 20 people. If they wanted to die they would had done it. Some try, but couldn't. And if they just committed suicide that would be whatever. But when you bring multiple of others, that's totally different. \"Lethal injection becomes inhumane when you use it kill someone. Why is that? Because it\"s murder.\" it not murder. We wouldn't be sitting here doing this if they hadn't done something so extreme. It there doing. Not the government fault nor society. We'll maybe to a degree. But still they killed 5 or more people, something else have to be done. Instead of them just living life up toward there 70's to 80's. Lethal injection is the safer way. Unless you want to shot them 8n the head. But i rather use the Lethal injection. Less gruesome. You may be right, the government probably wouldn't give back to the people who really need it. But they could. Plus there are many other things the government could spend on while saving in my proposal system. Like schools, infrastructure, hospital, there are many. Shouldn't be spend on these murdered who killed so many people. \"Your system would still need long trials in the cases of mass murders and the torturing of children.\" i will give you the long trail part for some of these cases. But not the sentencing. Because they are sentence, it would only be a week or two before putting them to the death penalty. Another thing that doesn't add up. It not just the homeless, who have a hard time getting food it regular people too. But the biggest thing is medication and medical attention. These murdered get pills every day and get medical treatment for free. While the poor or regular people like you and me have to paid for our medication or medical treatment. Like i said before in my round 2. It cost the taxpayers an average of 31k a year or higher for these convicted killers. Another 168k or higher just to house these murdered. Most of these murdered live while beyond 20 to 50 years in prison. So add all of this, it well over 4 millions. I have more to say, but it will be continue in the comment area","The death penalty should be allowed\nAnd why is it just? If you are trying to stop killing, it makes absolutely NO sense to kill people!","The Death Penalty should be abolished\nI'll preface this with two things: One, this is my first debate, so I apologize in advance if I have some stylistic things that need to be worked out. Two, I'm in the middle of my finals, so I apologize again if my responses take longer than you would like. Now to refuting your arguments. The Death Penalty - Murder is defined as \"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.\" As such the act of killing some one with the death penalty is not murder by definition because the government does not recognize it as such. Additionally, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history, and is even advocated in the Bible repeatedly in acts such as stoning children who act against their parents, or any other number of sinners. You said that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, so then is it nor morally reprehensible if there is a war? Then we must look at what war is? It is simply when a country believes it has been wronged by another entity, as such, if a country believes some entity, be it another state, a terrorist faction, or a person, is of sufficient threat to its citizens it has the right then to fight back and kill. Is that not essentially what the death penalty is? - You said\"Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, \"I would but I don't want to get the death penalty.\" You do hear, \"I would. I don't want to go to jail.\"\" Is it not redundant to say that it is the status quo for humans to not wish to die. As such you don't hear people say \"I don't want to get the death penalty\" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. In effect, I would just have to generally disagree with you on this point, crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death. - \"It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes.\" Is killing them not forcing them to pay for their crimes? - \"The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully.\" This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law, and look for reasons that they should be allowed another appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. They can not do this if they are dead. - \"Capital punishment is cruel and unusual... It is destroying American values\" Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual, every effort has been taken to see to it that the prisoner in question does not feel any pain in their passing, which is much more a service than they probably gave to their victims. In fact, going back in time, a quick painless death came about with the invention of the guillotine, which arguably is much better than the lethal injection with regards to quick, painless death. - \"The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as racial, ethnic and religious minorities.\" While this statement may appear to have some substance, it can not be taken at face value. Unfortunate as it may be, the percentages of people within the U.S. prison system are in the majority for \"the poor,...racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.\" However, whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate. - \"The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.\" I'd like you to expand on this if you can, because with a statement this vague I don't know how to defend my position against it. If you are speaking about the cases in which it is used, then yes, it may very well vary. However this is because the states are allowed to determine whether or not capital punishment is acceptable, and if it is, under what scenarios. This is an example of the states deciding what coincides with the belief systems and the needs of its residents. This is a good thing because it allows the citizens to dictate the world they live in. - \"Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state. People are released from jail constantly for crimes they did not commit. Imagine if you were suddenly murdered for a crime you did not commit.\" While this does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be \"suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit,\" there is nothing sudden about the death penalty. - \"A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.\" This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime. - \"Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.\" While this is true, it is not the actual act of capital punishment, but rather the court fees for all of the additional litigation, which as i said before may be present in a non-capital court case. - \"The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system and make speedy trials impossible as well.\" I think I've touched on this enough. However, the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding. - \"We as a society have to move away from the \"eye for an eye\" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.\" Wasn't \"an eye for an eye\" one of the first rules set down in Hammurabi's code which was one of the stepping stones for civilization to begin to advance because we had law? Although yes we do need to advance, beyond an eye for an eye, this does not detract from the potential benefit of ridding the world of a mass murderer, or rapist or what have you. - \"It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? ... Should we rape people who rape people? No lesson is learned.\" This simply does not make sense, it is fallacious logic. It is not a Gov does this to Person X because Person X did this to Citizen Y. Rather it is more government gets rid of Person X because they did this ti Citizen Y and it is believed that they have the potential to do said act again and it is more beneficial for the community to be rid of Person X. The way our laws are set up in no way reflect the scenarios you described. Death is just another level of separation between the public masses and the criminal; albeit a permanent one. - \"Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures.\" Honestly I think our stance on the death penalty is a low priority to other countries. What I think they are more concerned about is the \"murdering\" of Iraqis by American troops in the scenario you said earlier would make killing acceptable. If that is so, why are they so angry about our invasions and war? - \"Most jury members ... murderers roam free.\" Again partially true, jury members are reluctant to convict if it means the person will receive the death penalty, but then again we don't want them to feel comfortable sending some one to their death, the death penalty makes them treat the case that much more seriously. Also there are usually lesser charges brought against the defendant that the jurors could still find him/her guilty on, without the death penalty. - \"The prisoner's family ... appeals process.\" Yes, and isn't it horrible how much they must grieve... a strange parallel between them and the victim's family. Only it was not the victim who brought the prisoners family into a situation that would cause them pain.","Death Penalty\nI believe the death penalty is unconstitutional. It violates human rights, and me being a Christian, it goes against the ten commandments but that's just my say.","The death penalty should exist.\nI will be making a follow up argument and hopefully correcting any misinformed or wrongfully written statements. I will also be removing the citation numbers on your passages when I cite your work, since we are using the same referencing method. (I want to remove confusion) \"The most popular punishment for states without the death penalty that want an intense penalty would be life in prison without any possibility of parole.\" I agree it is, however, many criminals simply are not getting this time, prisons are becoming over populated because of bad laws like minor drug offenses being labelled with hefty time in prison, gang related crimes and theft [3] \"Also, the idea of executing people that refuse psychological help is immoral at its core and is currently illegal. The insane (or mentally ill) cannot be executed, for it is unconstitutional.\" It is and I apologise for the way my description ended, it was not meant to be taken that way, after re-reading it I see how that perspective could be met; I meant as in, if a criminal that has murdered, raped or abused someone refuses psychological help and they are being released, (because of our TERRIBLE justice system) why shouldn't they be put up for the death penalty? I don't mean to swing the accusation stick around, but what do you think should happen to criminals that just don't get these hefty charges due to race, location or pay rate?[1] Morals / Ethics: I would suggest that ending someone's life peacefully is a better alternative to making them psychologically disabled and unable to cope in the real world if ever released after an extended period of time. I personally know two people that were in prison for only 3 years for assault, they are not the same. something in them is broken. They wake up screaming and run at the site of their name. 10+ years would destroy a person. However, giving them luxury does not fit the justice required. So we are in a period of displacement, do we... treat them well in an isolated environment even though it is only preventing them from doing crimes and not teaching them a lesson... it's not justice, do what is just and damage them entirely psychologically, do we end their life peacefully. Basically, are we preparing them for life in the real world, or are we enforcing and breaking them until they die? If they go back into society, damaging them is only going to lead them back to a lifestyle they were comfortable with. Overpopulation: There is currently a serious problem of overpopulation within the prisons, leading to a lack of safety for security and a risk of rioting, and possibly, a mass escape.[2] \"By saying that these prisoners are able to live a happy life with luxury is a very big exaggeration.\" 'A prison officer who has worked at Cardiff for 15 years said last week that inmates were simply sitting in their cells watching snooker on television or playing computer games.' [4] 'The death penalty is not the only way to keep them from recommitting, and from the harms of the death penalty as I stated above, we simply cannot allow it.' Prison sentences and the death penalty does not deter crime rates[5]. The death penalty is a viable option for people who are at risk to other people, and security guards. I am not disputing that life in prison would sound better than the death penalty... if they couldn't find loop holes, but there are crafty lawyers out there.[6] I apologise if my argument seems over the place, it's very late and I am very tired. I will construct my stance more accurately in the next round. In summary so far: The death penalty appears to be a viable option, the price isn't the prisons fault, nor is it the expense of the poisons used, but the court cases that take place, regardless of being on death row or not. The court cases cost the government A LOT of money anyway. I have given evidence suggesting my claims were in deed accurate. prisons are becoming over populated, prisoners are either getting no punishment or complete punishment. There is no balance. This doesn't mean the death penalty is a viable option, however for prisoners getting released, being broken or being the same is not going to help rehabilitate society. The death penalty should be in place for people we can't have in society anymore. I have shown evidence of cases where people do use loop holes eventually. The death penalty is a useful tool. References: http://www.heraldnet.com... [1] http://www.abc.net.au... [2] http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6]","Death penalty\nLife in prison deters crime/murder as well as the death penalty","The Death Penalty\nThe Con seems to be approaching this debate from a more real-world perspective than the somewhat philosophical take I have on the debate, but we'll see how this goes. As previously stated, my argument is on two main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment In my attempt to prove that certain crimes can deserve death, I will focus mainly on how the death penalty is a logical extension of the concept of human rights and how it is the state's duty to enforce it: 1. On my first point, I will start by examining why we have rights in a legal context. In human society, we operate on the principle that everyone has a certain set of inalienable human rights and are to be treated equally. However, why should these rights be inalienable? Why are human rights distinct from animal rights? We are not equal as humans, some are faster, some stronger than others. Yet in the eyes of the law we are treated as such. This is because we all share the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. We accept responsibilities. The entire concept of human and legal rights is that one's rights are equal to the responsibilities one accepts. If one rejects responsibility, by that logic, one forfeits rights. A prime example of this is in the mentally handicapped. Those who are mentally ill and pose a threat to themselves and others have greatly diminished rights, but equally diminished responsibilities. A mentally ill person does not for example, have the right to vote, but they also have less responsibility in the eyes of the law, because of their handicap. We operate on the understanding that one must abide by the same rules as all, or else suffer equal or greater punishment to their transgression. This is why we use imprisonment as a deterrent. Prisoners, of course, also lose the right to vote among others because of their rejection of their responsibilities. Think of a dog. We do not afford a dog the same rights we do a human, and so we do not hold a dog to the same responsibilities. If a dog mauls a child to death, they are put down. However if a human murders a child, they are not. Why not, though? Assuming that person to be perfectly mentally healthy, they have the same faculty for moral reasoning as any other human and can be held to the same responsibilities as any other human. They have abdicated their responsibility to respect life, and should have forfeited their right to life. If a human being does not behave as a human should, they should not be treated as human. Human rights are deserved because of our ability to understand and respect them, not simple biological similarities. It is the duty of the state to punish the abdication of responsibility with the removal of equal rights. Imprisoning a murderer for 20 years, for example, is much like fining a man €5,000 for stealing €10,000. Punishment must always fit the crime. Certain acts when performed by a mentally capable human being amount to a deficient moral compass. Fundamentally rejecting human morality, and therefore rejecting the rights afforded to all humans. What are we to define these acts as? What acts are fundamental violations of human morality? Murder, rape, and any permutations of the aforementioned, are good examples. Any crime in which the perpetrator is likely to reoffend and society will be better off without. I only propose a model wherein the elimination of the perpetrator benefits society. I will go on to define how the elimination of these people is a good thing for society as a whole. On my first point I have sought to prove that: a) Certain acts can indeed negate one's right to life I intend to expand upon this in later rounds. 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against reoffence. As previously discussed, I am going to attempt to prove that society can benefit from the elimination of certain criminals. Why, though? Surely it is better to rehabilitate? Indeed, there is some weight to this, but certain severe crimes have high rates of reoffence. This is a symptom of having no moral compass whatsoever. Society is better off without those who have not the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. Ultimately, one without morality is as good as an animal. These criminals are dangerous in prison, and imprisonment is not a sufficient deterrent to them as these criminals are most likely to thrive in a prison environment. I refer to murderers, rapists, drug dealers, (specifically of hard drugs) gangland crime, etc. Such people are very difficult to punish correctly. In prison, they establish a dominance, and if they are ever to be released will at once return to crime. Rehabilitation is not a likelihood with such criminals and as such, it is not worth the state's while affording them the same rights as others. These people are a burden on society, and their elimination is not a bad thing. We negate the possibility of future crimes by them. In this point I have attempted to prove that: b) It benefits society to eliminate individuals who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed these offences and it is therefore a duty of the state to do so. Those two statements a and b are the foundation of my argument. I am seeking to prove that the death penalty should be implemented, not that it functions as it is in America, as I feel I made quite clear with my definition. I eagerly await Con's reply, thank you.","The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.\nFor this round, I will focus solely on refuting the two weak opening contentions put forward by my oppoent. First Contention - \"Innocent Executions\" Claim: The US government has executed innocent people before, and should not be allowed to take this risk. Examples of innocent executions include Cameron Willingham[1], Carlos DeLuna[2], and the Meeks[3]. Fact: There isn't a single documented case of a wrongful execution in the United Statesover as Supreme Court Justice Scalia has pointed out, \"not a single case-not one-in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops.\" Case 1) Cameron Willingham - the citation was an article in the Chicago Tribune that casted doubt on the expert testimony of arson that was part of the original trial. I would point to several articles in the Dallas Morning News that show while the arson investigation methods were outdated, they investigation by the Tribune didn't rule out arson either. This is also true in the investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which couldn't rule out arson. All these investigation did was look at the arson investigation techniques used at the time and never examined the inconsistencies in his story. (As for citation, you have to do a search in the paper's archive.) It is telling that his lawyer, David Martin, said \"There was no question whatsoever that he was guilty.\" [1] His ex-wife, and mother to the dead children, believed he did it. [2] For me, this is a case of the media, and anti-death penalty groups, creating a false narrative that excludes the other evidence presented in the case to push an agenda. Case 2) Carlos DeLuna - the citation used is an article in the Guardian U.K. that pointed to a study by Professor James Liebman and 12 students published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. I would first point out that Professor Liebman is a longtime anti-death penalty advocate and there is reasons to be skeptical given his other dubious studies on the subject. Such as his study finding \"serious error\" in capital cases [3]. When you look at the details and the actual cases, what you find is not the unreliability of lower courts but the Supreme Court, which retroactively changes the rules. He used cases from the Rose Bird era of the California Supreme Court which an ideological justice reversed all death penalty cases and these frivolous examples are cited as examples of \"reversible errors\" [4]. I would also add that you should consider the politics of Columbia University where convicted cop killer and Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin is an adjunct professor at Columbia University\"s School of Social Work and serves as director of the school\"s \"Criminal Justice Initiative\" [5]. The extreme politics at Columbia are well known [6]. In this case, the murder occured in 1983 and the execution was carried out in 1989 [7]. So bear in mind this study comes nearly 30 years after the crime. Carlos Deluna had only been out of prison for six weeks prior to the murder. He was convicted of improper use of a motor vehicle and attempted rape, served 3 years, paroled, and then attacked and attempted to rape the mother of a friend, which caused his parole to be revoked and he was sent back to prison [8]. Somehow attempted rape breaking several ribs of your victim doesn't qualify as a violent criminal past in the case of DeLuna according to Liebman. The story Liebman gives was that Deluna was present while another guy committed the crime and he decided his best course of action was to run a short distance and hide under a truck and just happen to have the same amount of money that was taken from the store. And this is how the testimony of the two eyewitnesses is dismissed as well. Nevermind that DeLuna testified at his trial that he was at a skating ring with Mary Ann Perales who testified that he was not with her. The lead prosecutor and one DeLuna's defense have stated that Liebman never spoke with them about the case [9]. Liebman lied [10] when he claimed there is no evidence that the store was robbed despite the fact that during trial the store owner testified about the amount of money missing, which happened to be the same amount found on DeLuna in a wad in addition to his wallet that only had two one-dollar bills. It seems a bit dubious that Hernandez bragged about the killing after DeLuna's conviction, which didn't ever come out until Liebman's investigators showed up many years later. Don't forget that even if he hadn't delievered the killing blow, under the felony-murder rule he still could have been charged and convicted and that if he had gotten life without parole, he would have died or be rotting till he died in prison. I am far from convinced this is a case of an innocent man being executed. Case 3) Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin - this is a case where I would have to agree that two men were wrongly executed but we're talking about a murder that occured in 1913 and I don't think a century old case is a sufficient basis to attack the criminal justice system today and further argue we end capital punishment. Claim: This system is clearly fallible and yet serves an irreversible purpose - to legally murder people. Fact: According to Justice Scalia, \"[L]et\"s give the professor the benefit of the doubt: let\"s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren\"t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent\"or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.\" [11] As for the argument that capital punishment is equal to \"legal murder,\" I would counter that this is faulty moral logic. I can offer the following examples: arresting and holding a murder suspect in jail till trial doesn't draw charges of legally kidnapping people and holding them against their will. The same can be said of saying rape is the moral equivilent of sex because both end in sexual contact. This faulty logic completey denies context and is an all to common charge leveled by the anti-death penalty crowd. Claim: Should a system which allows for error, allow for the potential (and in some cases fulfilled potential) of mistakes to be made and incorporated when combined with an irreversible outcome? No - not when compared to alternatives. Fact: Well, every single human system on earth is going to have some degree of error possible and a lack of perfection is hardly a basis for abolishment. Following a conviction in a capital case, there is variance among the states, but there are 8 levels of appeal [12]. Following a trial, and a conviction, the defendant gets at automatic appeal to the State Court of Criminal Appeals. It either affirms the conviction or overturns the conviction, sentence, or both. If the court affirmed the conviction, the defendant can make a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the discretion to either hear the case or turn it down. If turned down, the defendant can then begin State Habeas Corpus proceedings with the State Court of Criminal Appeals. If denied, the defendant can begin with Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings in U.S. District Court. If denied, the defendant can the make an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. If denied, the defendant can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review. If the decision is upheld, then a defendent can seek Executive Clemency from the Governor of the state. If this fails, then the defendant awaits their execution date. This is a pretty lengthy system that affords murderers ample opportunity to fight a conviction, especially more than any murder victim was given to fight their death sentence. And that process can hardly be called potential for wrongful execution and in many cases, thanks in part to your advocacy, murderers can skirt their capital sentence. As for the alternative: consider Mr. DeLuna who you cited and if he had been convicted and sentenced to life without parole, Mr. Liebman wouldn't have studied his case and Mr. DeLuna would have sat in a prison until he died. Excuse me for objecting, but I'm having a hard time from balking at this silly moralizing - they can still be killed while in prison or serve a life term and die in prison. If imperfection and death are enough to give call for abolishment, then we could eliminate our roads and highways, which result in thousands of people dying every year. Claim: But there is also potential for death row innocence, too. As of 21st December 2012, 142 inmates on death row have been released. It is clear from this that the possibility is high that some of our criminals weren't really criminals; they would have died alone, in disgrace, and innocent. Fact: It is clear the possibility is not high; I can take your 142 inmates and use the old 2008 number of 7,000 given a death sentence since 1973 and that calculates to about 2% or a success rate of 98% - extremely low and rare. I would further dispute this list - the DPIC list equates acquittal and dismissals with actual innocence, cases reversed for legal insufficiency instead of innocence, case where evidence of guilt was excluded, defendants that were actual perpetrators/principals, and doesn't allow for review of actual innoncence [13]. At this point that 142 gets really small, but even assuming 142, in the end all you proved was that the system worked in terms of the multiple levels of appeal available to defendants. To me this just demonstrates the horribly dishonest length anti-death penalty zealots are willing to go to fabricate a case. (Due to the 10,000 limitation, I am forced to hold back my rebuttal to the second contention as well as the conclusion. Also sources.)","States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty\nThe State should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com... On April 1, 2013 the district attorney for Arapahoe County, George Brauchler, announced that they would be seeking the death penalty for James E Holmes. Prior to this announcement, The Defense had offered to plea guilty to all charges in order to avoid the death penalty. Positions: Me: I will be arguing for this position. PRO You: Will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of plea. Format of the Debate: Round 1 Administrative Round please state the following: \"I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regadless of the plea of the defendant\" Round 2 Me: Opening Statement You: Opening Statement / First Rebuttal Round 3 Me: First Rebuttal / Questions to Opposing side (3 Max) You: Questions to Opposing Side (3 Max) / Answers to Questions Round 4 Me: Answers to Questions / Response to Answers You: Response to Answers / Final Arguments or Rebuttals Round 5 Me: Final Arguments or Rebuttals / Closing Statements You: Closing Statements If you have no questions simply state : \"I have no questions for my opponent\" Good luck!","Death Penalty\nI believe the death penalty is wrong on a moral standpoint and from a logical standpoint: 1. State-sanction murder/Immoral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can we as a society tell people not to murder and then turn around and say \"but the state can!\" The death penalty is murder. mur\"der G2;mərdər/Submit noun 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. You might argue that it is legal but I say it violates our 8th amendment which states: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\" The death penalty is cruel punishment. If someone commits a horrendous act, I am not saying they should be excused, I am saying they should not be murdered by the state. The death penalty is also dangerous. We run the risk of killing innocent people. Many states have reopened cases where there might have been a chance that the person was wrongfully killed. We already mess up on prison sentence, sending people to prison for 19 years for crimes they did not commit. What makes you think it won't happen in death penalty cases? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Costly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Common Dreams: \"The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades.\" https://www.commondreams.org... One example of this is in Oregon where: \"in 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year.\" https://oadp.org... Furthermore: \"According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel... ...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have \"uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. And let's not forget about appeals: in Idaho, the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (downloads as a pdf): almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant. New York state projected that the death penalty costs the state $1.8 million per case just through trial and initial appeal.\" https://www.forbes.com... So the death penalty uses up more money and time than a non-capital case. Contrary to popular belief, combining the full case costs of a non-capital trial vs the full case cost of a capital trial, death penalty in the end costs way more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Unjust/Racially Charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death penalty has also been proven to be biased towards white people and against people of color. The death penalty is also more likely to be applied when the defendant is black and the victim is white.. Martin O'Malley, JD, the former Governor of Maryland asserts: \"Our nation's legacy of slavery and racial injustice find continued offense in our use of the death penalty. Our death row population is more than 40% black -- nearly three times the proportion of the general population.\" \"The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black. Race is a \"potent influence\" at every step in the criminal (in)justice system, including search, arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and execution.\" https://www.commondreams.org... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Not evidence of deterrence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime whatsoever. Why are wasting taxpayer dollars for something that doesn't even have any benefits? \"Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the US when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s and the second greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital punishment on crime...\" https://deathpenalty.procon.org... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. No healing And finally, my last argument is that the death penalty provides no healing. \"\"To me, the death penalty also is something else \" a sad reminder of how our justice system typically offers punishment instead of healing for the survivors of violent crime\"For a growing number of victims of violence, the thought of honoring our loved ones by killing another human being is not only counter-intuitive, but abhorrent.\" How does killing another human make us feel better? At the end of the day, the victim's families still feel the pain, the loss, and the agony of their loved one being taken away. https://deathpenalty.procon.org...","The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.\nJustice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1. 1 \"Saving Lives and Money.\" The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. improve this ","should the death penalty be allowed for drugs\nunless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them.","Death penalty\ni disagree death penalty. Death penalty is immoral and it can kill innocent people too.","The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States\n1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement Con main argument so far is cost. Criminal justice is always expensive, but citizens think justice makes it worthwhile to prosecute serious crimes despite the cost. We should be willing to pay what it takes to obtain justice. Still, the claim that life sentences are cheaper is false. There are three elements of cost involved with a death penalty: 1. The court costs properly associated with extra scrutiny The claimed savings supposes that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole can be imposed without extra scrutiny. In fact, if there is any savings at all, it is small. Only about 6% of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project involved death row inmates. [4] They are apply a high level of scrutiny to crimes that would include life without parole. Moreover, inmates convicted of life without parole are certainly going to want to file every appeal possible to get the sentence reduced, and the government is obliged to pay the costs of the prosecution and the defense in those cases. The appeals in such case can go on for the life of the inmate. 2. The court costs incurred unreasonably in defending the laws that permit execution Much of the current costs of pursuing he death penalty involves challenges to the death penalty itself. Courts eager to overturn the death penalty are allowing appeals on such grounds as the drug used for the lethal injection must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. [8. http://www.truth-out.org...] The wording of the present resolution eliminates challenges to the death penalty itself, which can accomplished by legislation. 3. The costs of confining inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security The main costs are actually in housing the inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security confinement. Death row mainly involves a higher level of security, and that includes single-occupant cells rather than two-inmate cells. The premise of the cost savings is that murderers sentenced to life imprisonment rather than execution are safer, and hence may be mixed with the general inmate population. There are no grounds for that assumption. The convicted killer has a free pass to kill inmates or guards, or to escape and kill civilians. No extra penalty is available to deter such action, and data [5] shows there is serious threat. Con has offered as a solution to the problem of \"free pass\" killings is that extra-high security confinement be used to prevent it. That's exactly the cost that eliminating the death penalty is alleged to save. California is used as an example of the high costs. Virtually no one has been executed in California, due to obstructions sustained by California Courts. Consequently, nearly all inmates are kept in high security until they die of natural causes. Actually carrying out executions reduces those costs substantially. Ohio, for example, as much lower costs because they actually perform executions. A California official said, “They are much more willing to exercise their capital punishment system [in Ohio] than California, thus alleviating one of the pressures that our state wrestles with,” [9. http://www.bloomberg.com... ] The net result is a minor cost increase is suffered by extra scrutiny, but very substantial savings are obtained by not having to maintain the inmate in maximum security for a lifetime. The death penalty saves money. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal I cited the case of parents executed in front of their children by a contract killer, and asked if justice demand the death penalty. Con brushed aside the question and said that being confined for life was punishment enough. Well, who gets to ultimately decide what is adequate? Juries decide when justice demands the death penalty. [10. http://abcnews.go.com...] In a democracy, the public ought to decide. About two-thirds of the states have the death penalty. As to life being worse, even serial killers are willing to plea bargain to get rid of the possibility of a death sentence. Neither the public nor the killers are confused about the issue. 2+. Execution saves innocent lives Con has not presented a single case of an innocent person being freed. I carefully spelled out why the 17 cases were people who would not necessarily have been executed, and even the Innocence Project itself makes no claim of lives saved. Even though no cases of wrongful executions are established, I granted that there were likely a few. Con cites the page I referenced as having no killings by escapees after 1989. There are, however, killing of guards and inmates after that date, and those count as unnecessary deaths. However, I had noted that the page was an incomplete list. A web search reveals many recent cases. in 2008 an escape killed his wife and child http://www.denverpost.com... in 1997 an escapee killed his wife http://www.sacbee.com... in 2010, two escaped murderers killed an elderly couple http://www.blogforarizona.com... in 1999 a convicted murder killed a prison guard http://amarillo.com... I found eight additional cases of convicted murderers who escaped being recaptured before they killed again. Con's claim that modern technology precludes escape is wrong. No one keeps a careful list, so there are probably many more lives lost in avoiding executions. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics Con cites one case of a conviction that was overturned under scrutiny and no recent cases of false executions. Better forensics does not reduce the number of murderers caught and subject to execution. I eliminates false convictions, but DNA provides solid evidence to convict many others who would have gone free in past times. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Con claims that automobiles provide a benefit in return for the 30,000 innocent lives lost, but he fails to see a benefit to executions. A primary benefit is that justice is done, but it also saves the lives of those the convicted would subsequently kill, it deters murder particularly by the incarcerated, it saves substantial amounts of money on holding murderers for life, and plea bargains save money, solve cases, and provide closure to victims families. 5+. Justice deters crime Con argues that it is Japanese culture that produces their low crime rate, not their use of the death penalty. But what is it about the culture that lowers crime rates? I don't see what racial minorities have to do with it. It isn't the death penalty by itself, but rather that the society as a whole cares a great deal about providing justice, and justice in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Con points out that foreigners in Japan commit more crimes. Indeed, foreigners are unlikely to come from a culture so concerned with administering true justice, so they are more likely believe they can get away with commiting a serious crime. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining Con argues plea bargaining can also occur under a life sentence. Right, \"Plead guilty and we will give you a Kindle in your life sentence without parole. Otherwise go to trial and risk losing the Kindle.\" The prospect of death is more compelling. The leverage is so great that it alone is reason enough for having a death penalty. It works even if the death penalty is rarely carried out, because the downside to the felon is so great.","Death Penalty\nOne who causes death shall expierence actions taken against them. See, the death penalty should only be used on the worst criminal, such as Charles Manson. These men have torn families apart, and it would be nice to have a solution. The Death penalty is not the solution to everything, but Charles Manson's erratic behavior is quite annoying and he has been imprisoned for over 40 or more years. Charles Manson purposley goes to parole hearings just so he can show how crazy he is, it would be nice to have this problem dissapere.","Death penalty\nThe death penalty is uncharacteristic of a decent society","The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States\nThank you, Roy, for posting your final argument. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal My opponent points out that because the community favors the death penalty, the lack of a death penalty would require a dangerous non-democratic elite. However, there is another alternative: the death penalty should not be legal, so therefore the people should not supprot it. Democracy is not inherently right; such an idea would commit the is-ought fallacy. During much of America's history, the majority supported slavery; does that mean that slavery \"should\" have been legal? The \"should\" in the resolution implies that my goal in this debate is to explain why the people should stop supporting the death penalty. If my opponent is allowed to assume that with a legal death penalty comes an overhaul of the system to eliminate wasteful trials, then I am allowed to assume that the people should oppose the death penalty, and therefore the death penalty should be illegal. My opponent has no response regarding the risk of 5-4 court decisions. Additionally, regarding the \"safeguards against wrongful executions,\" my opponent seems to want to disassemble many components of the trial process; would such revision continue to have support from the Supreme Court, given how shaky they already are? 2+. Execution saves innocent lives With my opponent's intentions of executing prisoners with little time for the Innocence Project, the 17 freed prisoners would indeed have been executed. The Innocence Project does not make this claim because they are not aware of my opponent's plans. Regarding the ten executions listed, the site claims that they are wrongful, but have yet to be confirmed by the state; this makes it rather unlikely that any of them were proper executions. My opponent incorrectly assumes that 35 is an upper bound, but this does not include the unknown number of innocents executed that were not caught by the Innocence Project, the state's revision process (which has already been sourced as imperfect), and the ten infamous cases. 35 is instead more likely a lower bound. My opponent argues that in a life sentence, there will be murders of inmates and guards; however, he has never given an example of this under maximum security. He has only used numerous examples from medium or minimum security. I was never expecting a list of deaths in maximum security prison, but we don't even have a single example from which to conclude anything. My opponent's final comparison of eight to 33 assumes that all mistaken executions are later realized, which is almost definitely false, and that those 33 prisoners were under the same security that someone my opponent would give the death penalty would be under, which is also false. My claim of \"increased security\" was mistaken by my opponent as \"supermax,\" but only maximum security, which is already legal, is necessary, making this point irrelevant. Concluding this contention, switching prisoners from the death sentence to a life sentence under maximum security would not increase the murder count at all, because all of the examples of breakout murders occured under sub-maximum security. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics It may be more difficult for a framing or bribery to work, but it is far from impossible. I already cited a case in which it nearly succeeded; had a few fewer mistakes been made, it would have succeeded. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error My opponent again compares the risk of driving to the risk of execution. Since Round 1, I've pointed out that the use of automobiles benefits everybody in the world outstrips the benefit of executing murderers \"by factors easily past the billions.\" Anything true for one is a far cry from guaranteed for the other. This is somewhat of a subjective point, so direct debating is difficult. The cost argument I mentioned in this contention, although it is also its own separate contention, to be discussed later. 5+. Justice deters crime My opponent claims that \"the death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society.\" However, if we look at many Western countries and states, we could also see that the lack of a death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society. This isn't relevant to whether the death penalty deters crime at all. Regarding the statistics that I cited, their key points were the conclusions of criminologists and a study by the United Nations, neither of which would have the problems that my opponent supposes. Comparisons made between states compared bordering states with similar rural and urban makeups. My quote from the FBI that \"[i]n no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty\" goes unchallenged. Constant-culture studies are not as relevant to the death penalty in the United States as a study of effects in America itself, and we apparently don't see the death penalty as a deterrent, which is all that matters. 1-. Costs Death row itself is, apparently, more expensive than the maximum security that nobody can seem to break out of. A life sentence doesn't need death row security, but only maximum security. My opponent points to things that inflate the costs, but through much of this debate, I've been using statistics from Texas, which my opponent admits has relatively inexpensive executions, making those points moot. It is true that I never made any repsonse to defend supermax security, but that is because, as I said last round, supermax security is unnecessary when maximum security provides enough security to prevent escapes and murders. Plea bargaining from the death penalty may help with the costs slightly, but by the millions? Unlikely. As for the freeing of police, they would already be freed from the death penalty trials that occupy so much of the court's time, as I have already cited. In conclusion, the death penalty is unnecessarily expensive and kills more innocent people than it saves, with benefits not worth the trouble. Thank you, RoyLatham, for this debate. Good luck with the rest of the tournament.","Death penalty\nThe death penalty doesn't deter crime. If anything more and more people will commit crimes under the death penalty. More people will try to see what they can get away with under the death penalty. It's much better to have prison. Not clean, conformtable prisons like the ones we have now, but rather real dark prisons. It's better to let a criminal rot for what he has done than to give him a nice quick death.","Capital punishment\nMy OPP made sound arguments it is just that as he stated \"I think that judges need to contemplate what punishment would be suitable for a particular criminal, and if the DP is seen as suitable, then so be it.\" Well there is no room for emotions and hot-headed behavior in the judicial system. A judge can be biased. Our system of criminal justice for all its protections is sufficiently fallible that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes. The morality of the death penalty has been hotly debated for almost a century in the U.S. The debate has swayed both ways, resulting in a moratorium on the punishment and a change in the procedure for applying the punishment. The institution of the death penalty in the United States is a fallible, unconstitutional and grossly abused appendage of the judicial system. One major argument against the death penalty highlights the fact that killing a person ends their right to due process. Once a person is dead they can no longer appeal their conviction, so even if new evidence comes forward, the person remains dead. The death penalty is the most final and unforgiving punishment imaginable. This poses problems because our system is fallible and prone to error. That is why the appeals process exists, so that errors can be corrected. In a system that prides itself on the importance of the appeals process the death penalty remains as the juggernaut of punishments. If the death penalty is cruel and it is a fallible system in which innocents have been executed, does this mean that the State if guilty of murder? Under a representative democracy there is no absolute leader that is placed above the law. Because murders have been committed and they have been done so in a systematic manner, doesn't this then mean the State has murdered? Many people would argue that the State has to be able to make mistakes, because it is a institution of humanity. If the punishment is absolute and final, shouldn't the State doing the punishing be fallible? The idea of a State that can be wrong convicting and executing its citizens is everything the framers of the Constitution stood against. People that have been proven innocent after execution: http://listverse.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (1) Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 In February 1983, Wanda Lopez, was stabbed to death during her night shift at the gas station where she worked. After a manhunt, police found De Luna hiding under a truck. Recently released from prison, he was violating his parole by drinking in public. De Luna told police that he was innocent and he offered the name of the person who he saw at the gas station. Police ignored the fact that he did not have a drop of blood on him even though the crime scene was covered in blood. The single eyewitness confirmed to police that De Luna was the murderer after police told him he was the right guy. At trial De Luna named Carlos Hernandez as the man he saw inside the gas station, across the street from the bar where De Luna had been drinking. Hernandez and DeLuna were strikingly similar in appearance but, unlike DeLuna, Hernandez had a long history of knife attacks similar to the convenience store killing and repeatedly told friends and relatives that he had committed the murder. Friends confirmed that he was romantically linked to Lopez as well. De Luna's lawyers knew of Hernandez's criminal past but never thoroughly investigated his previous crimes. On December 7, 1989, Texas executed 27-year old Carlos De Luna. (2) Larry Griffin executed in 1995 On June 26, 1980 in St. Louis 19-year-old Quintin Moss was killed in a drive-by shooting. The conviction was based largely on the testimony from Robert Fitzgerald a white career criminal, who was at the scene at the time of the murder. He testified that he saw three black men in the car when shots were fired and that Griffin shot the victim through the window of the car with his right hand. This was Griffin's attorneys first murder trial and he did not challenge the testimony even though Griffin was left-handed. He also failed to bring forth an alibi witness who was with Griffin at the time of the murder. Griffin's fingerprints were not found on the car or the weapon all evidence against him was circumstantial. There is evidence that suggests Fitzgerald was promised a reduce sentence in exchange for his testimony. The prosecution also failed to address that there were two other witnesses who confirmed that Griffin did not commit the murder and they were able to name the three men who did. Appeals courts upheld his conviction and death sentence. Griffin was executed by lethal injection on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence right up to his execution. In 2005, a professor University of Michigan Law School reopened the case. His investigation concluded that Griffin was innocent. (3) Leo Jones executed 1998 On May 23, 1981 in Jacksonville, FL police officer Thomas Szafranski killed when shots were fired at his police cruiser when he was stopped at an intersection. Within minutes police officers busted into Leo Jones' apartment where they found Jones and his cousin, Bobby Hammonds. Police took both men in for questioning and then charged Jones, who they claimed had confessed. Hammonds gave a statement, saying he saw Jones leave the apartment with a rifle and return after he heard some gunshots. In 1997, a retired police officer, Cleveland Smith, came forward and said the officer that arrested Jones had bragged that he beat Jones after his arrest. Smith, who described the officer as an \"enforcer\" testified that he once watched him get a confession from a suspect through torture. Smith claimed that he waited so long to come forward with this evidence because he wanted to secure his pension. More than a dozen people had implicated another man as the killer saying they either saw him carrying a rifle as he ran from the crime scene or heard him brag he had shot the officer. Even Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw wrote that Jones case had become \"a horse of a different color\". Newly discovered evidence, Shaw wrote, \"casts serious doubt on Jones guilt.\" Shaw and one other judge voted to grant Jones a new trial. However, a five-judge majority ruled against him. Jones was executed by electric chair on March 24, 1998. These are just a few innocent people executed. Since 1976 there have been 1292 people executed...How many were innocent nobody will ever know. If one INNOCENT person is executed capital punishment is flawed and has to be abolished. This is literally life and death. \"I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings\" --Marquis de Lafayette","The death penalty\nThe death penalty is now a painless injection that does not cause pain to the person be executed. It is a way to show criminals what will come of their cruel actions. Never being able to see you family again is a wake up call to those who are given the penalty. The last thing they know is being strapped to a chair, and then painlessly dying.","This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished\nThank you for agreeing to this debate. So here I go. First, I would like to state that the death penalty is an act of murder. It is the act of taking someone's life away forcefully, which is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. The crime of murder (or other serious crimes such as kidnapping) carries our harshest of sentences such is our disdain for the crime. However, the death penalty is nothing more nothing less than \"legal\" murder carried out in a cruel and calculated manner by the state. Secondly, the death penalty cannot be reversed once carried out, which raises a number of issues. These serious flaw issues have again recently been highlighted in a report by the American Law Institute. Judges and juries do make mistakes. No legal system in this world can boast of cent percent discipline when it comes to crime investigation. There are chances that lack of proper investigations may land a wrong person in the conviction box, and even send him to gallows. One also has to understand that execution of an individual cannot be rectified if the person was found to be innocent after the execution. On the other hand, a person serving a life term can at least be set free once his innocence has been proved. There are indeed such cases where the \"criminal\" is innocent. Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the US, due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. Imagine what would have happened if their lawyers did not present the evidence in time. Sometimes innocent people cannot be saved. I quote from David Dow, Texas death penalty lawyer, author of \"Autobiography of an Execution\". He said: \"Learn about the Michael Richard case. He was mentally disabled. On the morning of his execution, in 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of lethal injection. Lawyers in my office scrambled to file a petition for Richard raising the issue, but he was executed because we did not finish by the time the court closed at 5. The court would not stay open late for us. I think if we had been able to get the petition filed, he would still be alive today.\" If the death penalty did not exist, Michael Richard, an innocent man, would have been alive. Justice Harry Blackmun was 85 years old and near the end of his tenure on the Supreme Court when he declared in 1994 that he could no longer support the imposition of the death penalty. \"The problem,\" he said, \"is that the inevitability of factual, legal and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.\" I quote from Anthony Graves, a man who was exonerated from Texas' death row in 2010: \"I know how easy it was for them to take my freedom and set out to kill me. I feel that if it was that easy, I\"m sure there have been many mistakes in the past, that many men and women on death row are innocent. It\"s not an infallible system. Anyone can be sentenced to death for a crime they didn\"t commit. That alone is a reason that the death penalty should be abolished.\" He says that it is highly possible that an innocent man could be put to death for a crime he did not commit. That is not only injustice, but also cannot be reversed.. There is no way to give a person back his/her life. Now, you might say I only quoted from the people who would gain from abolishing the death penalty. Let me quote Bob Curley, who lost his son to murder: \"When something like this (the murder of a loved one) happens, you feel violated, and your sense of what\"s right and what\"s wrong gets thrown out the window for a time. It\"s not something that you get over, and there\"s no closure. I have channeled my anger in a positive way by working to prevent child sexual abuse, and the death penalty convictions of innocent people.\" Even he, a person who lost his son to murder, worked to prevent death penalty convictions of innocent people. Those people would most likely have been charged with crimes such as murder. Influenced by his loss, he probably would have stood on the opposite side, but did not. You cannot say family of victims of murder like the death penalty. Some of them say the bloodshed is not a way to honour their beloved's life. (Please see: http://mvfhr.org...) Thirdly, the death penalty is unfair. It is not fair of the state to murder the murderer when it does not rape the rapist or burn the house of the arsonist. If death penalty is legalized on the grounds of tit-for-tat concept of justice, then all other crimes should be punished accordingly. Those in favor of capital punishment also ask why the taxpayers should have to take the burden of housing a convict, and providing him with the necessities of life. Instead, executing him will save a decent amount of money, which can be channelized towards the development of the nation. However, I would like to point out, as I mentioned above, what if the person was innocent? Can money give him back his life? I do not think so. Also, the cost of death penalty is actually higher than the cost of letting a criminal live. Most of us fail to realize that executing a death sentence does not save a lot of money. This is because, the cost incurred prior to and during the trial, involves an endless stream of appeals, legal wrangling, etc. For such trials, special motions and extra time for jury selection are required. Investigation charges also rise exorbitantly, especially by the prosecution. Lawyers and judges need to be paid, as well as simple things such as electricity. Thus, a lot of money is used during the process. Some also say that the death penalty stops people from killing. I think otherwise. Most murders are done in the heat of passion, wherein a person fails to think rationally, so to think the fear of death penalty will reduce homicides is unreasonable. If the government wants to send a message that killing is wrong, how can it convey the same by killing a person? Killing to convince people that killing is wrong, doesn't sound right, does it? \"An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind\", is what Mahatma Gandhi said. Death as punishment for death is not the solution. A murderer who has mercilessly killed people once, may escape from prison and end up killing others. Life imprisonment means chances of parole, which gives the criminal a chance to get back at those who testified against him. He can also take revenge from the victim's family. This leaves the victim's family living a life of fear all the time. Death penalty ensures the murderer can commit no more crimes in the future. That, however, does not mean we must keep the death penalty. Couldn't life without parole be considered? That can also effectively stop the criminal from taking revenge or murdering again. Is the death penalty really that effective? The time frame between the sentencing of convict and his actual execution is quite lengthy - at times spanning a decade or even more. By the time this execution is carried out, only a few people (mostly the victim's and criminal's family members) keep a track of the trial. As time elapses the deterrence effect of sentencing a person to death starts decreasing. Even those in support of death penalty agree with this fact, and argue that the legal fraternity should speed up such trials and execute the convict at the earliest so that the deterrence effect as a consequence of death penalty is maximum. But then, speedy trials would again mean more chances of an innocent person being sent to the gallows, and that is something which we can't afford to do. I look forward to hearing your arguments and rebuttals!"],"string":"[\n \"death penalty\\nTo explain the idiotic forfeit, my mom stole my computer which forced me to forfeit. Sorry about that. Give my opponent the conduct point. 1st, just because most Americans are pro-death penalty does not mean that we should do what they say. 139 countries having abolished it after using capital punishment for 10 or more years compared to 58 nations actively using it today. Just because the people agree with something does not mean it should be allowed! This is just an example which does not have to be true: If the majority of the people think that mosques should not be allowed to be built in all circumstances, does it make what they said right? This is a huge problem! People assuming that whatever the majority of the people believe, it's always right and that we should do what they say. 2nd of all, the concept that it deters crime does not account for many things. How does capital punishment save lives? Is my opponent honestly saying that because the USA allows death penalties that it prevents crime? Crime is the greatest in the USA even though the USA have the death penalty and executed the 5th most people in the world recently. Many people are not affected by the death penalty as to see that it depends on what kind of crimes they are but many people would rather be able to gain money, drugs, revenge, or something addicting by doing a crime even though of the risks. They don't think of the consequences but they just do it without thinking or considering the death penalty. Just because all of the people that you have said believes that the death penalty deters crime can not beat back the 87% of expert criminologists who say that the death penalty does not help deter crime at all and the 88% of the top criminologists who say that the abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on crime rates. Also For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9. Also all of the top 10 states with crime all have the death penalty. It's also not biased in the size of the state rather per 100,000 people. In 2008, 14 states without capital punishment were either at or below the national homicide rates. So all of your supposed \\\"facts\\\" in this contention are all wrong because they can't beat back all of these points that I have been showing to you. Also there can be and there has been wrongful executions. As many as 39 people in the U.S. have been executed from 1992 to 2004 because of the death penalty. 138 death row defendants were released since 1973 because of wrongful convictions and withheld papers. That is extremely unfair because of costing one's life just because of the death penalty. Even being in jail because of a misjudgement is better than being executed in the case of a misjudgement. Plus the death penalty is racially biased. 77% of death row defendants are executed for killing a white person but half of the victims are black. . I have so many more points I would like to make and also go into detail about many of them but I have to move on to the other contentions. 3rd of all, the death penalty doesn't actually give any closure to victim families. Sure, the victim's families may hate the defendants and want to hurt them but the death penalty doesn't actually help them feel any better. Let's take a look at Achilles when he lost his best friend Patroclus in the Trojan War. He was dissatisfied with all of the slaughtering of the Trojans and the torturing and killing of the killer Hector but was still empty until the day that he wept for an entire night with the killer's father. Sure, loss of friends and family members will always be a sad thing but the killing of the murderer doesn't necessarily put back what the people close to that victim have lost. The families will never totally recover and revenge by the death penalty is from the government is not going to put an \\\"ending chapter to this mess\\\". I also ask my opponent to tell me how many murderers in jail until they die have escaped and haunted the family. Also about releasing killers, would you give me some facts please? I have made my point that the death penalty has no significant effect and will never put an \\\"ending chapter to this mess\\\" on the people close to the murdered person. 4th of all, is justice served if he has to live in jail for the rest of his life? Yes! Justice is not better served by death penalty than living in jail for the rest of your life. Death is getting executed but life in jail till death is everyday torture knowing you will live the rest of your life in a cell. I would say life in jail till death serves justice better than the death penalty because if you die, you die. No more suffering, pain, hardships. None of the bad things or good things. But life in a prison cell until death is torture for many years to come. 5th of all, if God doesn't tell us to do the death penalty why should we do it. The fist two verses are from the Old Testament which is specifically God the Father wanted the Israelites to use capital punishment because there was no other way to do it. If you disagree with that statement, I bet you $10 (not $10,000 like Romney but $10 like Gingrich) thats you won't be able to find another way to punish a murder or death that is not capital punishment during their time which is an estimated to be after Ahmose and before Assyrians and Babylonians take over Israel and Judah. Also few people would use the capital punushment as the Old Testament says such as doing work on the Sabbath, false prophecy or making false statements about a woman's virginity. In the 3rd verse, it clearly doesn't mean a literal meaning. It means that Christians must not use their freedom from the Old Testament religious Law as an excuse to violate the civil law. We must obey civil authority, which is instituted by God, because of fear of punishment as well as conscience. The principles set forth by Jesus and the apostles restrict punishment to only that which is necessary to protect society and rather than giving. Jesus taught great principles for us to apply in our lives, rather than specific laws. Thus, his failure to specifically condemn slavery, capital punishment and many other evils should not be interpreted as approval of capital punishment. I see the mercy He showed to the woman caught in adultery as His rejection of capital punishment. However, Jesus never specifically repudiated capital punishment. Even if you want to go by the Old Testament which is totally irrelevant, the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 says \\\"Though shall not kill.\\\" The original Hebrew word ratsach, translated as \\\"kill\\\" or \\\"murder\\\" could refer to either killing in general or unlawful killing (murder). This is only if you want to argure the irrelevant way. 6th of all, \\\"it is constitutional\\\" is not a good reason. The Constitution has been changed so much and is always debated about if a part is correct or not. Just because our current law says that doesn't mean that it's right. If a country's \\\"constitution\\\" says that slavery is allowed, is that right? There are many flaws in every country's laws and this is one of them. 7th of all, the death penalty costs and diverts much more resources from genuine crime control and more expensive than alternative sentences. Death penalty is not at all cheap but expensive. The death penalty does cost a lot and may be more than life in jail but it depends on the time. Death penalty costs a whole lot on a one time event, life in jail costs a little every year so that is why death penalty is more expensive because it's a one time event.I have negated all of my opponent's contentions and have made my own points in the crowded rebuttal of my 2nd contention. Vote Con! My sources are in the comments section because lack of space.\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be Abolished\\nThe death penalty is necessary, because some people are so vile they can never be in contact with society without harming it in some way. Truly evil people do exist and they harm others - sometimes killing or ruining lives through their actions. This is not something that should be acceptable or allowed to continue without punishment to deter others with a like mentality.\",\n \"The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty\\n\\\"Is it really just bare assertions? IS that not how philosophy woks?\\\" A. You made a claim the death penalty works to deter crime using a quote, but didn't cite a source so we could review the study, therefore we can disregard that, since you did not give us a chance to check its validity. \\\"If just a jail time deters people, what more would death penalty?\\\" A. I have no clue what you really mean there, but you were making a point that having the death penalty increases the rate at which violent criminals are found and arrested which is completely asinine itself and then gave no evidence for this. Well your source is 46 pages long, I won't bother. However, I think my evidence that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is enough. \\\"...affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals. I do not agree with the rational choice theory because if it was true, then the evidence would show that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates. \\\"Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd like to refute your second part.\\\" A. I did give you evidence, I gave you a graph (or a link to it) that shows states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, so clearly it has not been very effective as a deterrent, but I could give you more. The opinions of top criminologists: A study conducted by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock surveyed some top criminologists in the country, criminologists who won the Sutherland award at the American Society of Criminology, and and presidents of the society since 1997. The study found that when asked if they believe the death penalty is a deterrent, 88% of them said no, while only 5% said yes, with 7% being indifferent. What we can conclude from this is some of the best criminologists in the country actually believe the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. But it gets worse, when asked if they thought there was good empirical evidence to support it is a deterrent... 94% said no, so even many criminologists who believe the death penalty works as a deterrent agree there is not much evidence to support that claim. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... The opinions of police chiefs: In a 2009 study, police chiefs in the country were surveyed on if they believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, 37% said yes, while 48% said no. So both criminologists and police chiefs agree, no it does not work as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... North Carolina empirical evidence: No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006, and the last death penalty sentence was given in 2012. However, since execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined. If cons argument was true then murder rates would have went up. Also, another comment on the rational theory thing earlier, most people given the death penalty do it \\\"...in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness.\\\" So the idea that all people considering homicide think rationally is asinine. http://nccadp.org... I could have even more at the request of con. \\\"False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give all the credits to the death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced.\\\" A. No but come on man, if that was true, states with the death penalty would have decreased in homicide rates, while states without it would have remained stagnant. But this just isn't true. Since all states declined, and states without the death penalty actually declined at a faster rate, we know this is false. If the death penalty deterred homicide, then those states would have decreased at a faster rate, but they decreased at a slower rate. \\\"But from the graph, you can see that death penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates.\\\" A. But pal if what your saying had any validity, then since the death penalty deters crime better than life sentences, than those states would have dropped faster, but they dropped slower, and the margin of higher homicide in those states actually grew. What we understand from this is that whatever caused crimes to decrease was not the death penalty, as that would have led to a very high decrease with your logic, but it was actually a slower rate than states without the death penalty. \\\"As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you.\\\" A. Me making that point was mostly me just saying that if it is for retribution but sometimes innocent people get killed it is clearly counter productive. If you are trying to say that innocent people getting killed with the death penalty, then it's wrong, I gave evidence for that. \\\"Accidentally executing innocent people will be rebutted in a whole different header.\\\" A. OOoohhhhhhh scary. To clarify there has been about 23 people that have been proven to be innocent, but there is most likely much more that slipped through the cracks, as hundreds have been exonerated. \\\"How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more the beginning of my round... Without any evidence all I can say is saying the death penalty costs u to 5 times more.\\\" A. Here they pretend like I gave no evidence that the death penalty costs more, which is 100% inaccurate. But I will do it again. First let me explain why a capital punishment case costs more, in a capital punishment case: two attorneys are required paid at a higher price and a team of legal experts, extra payments to jurors, the expense of appeals and sentencing hearings, and the cost to house people convicted, where prisoners much actually stay in special units that cost more for extra security, some times for decades. So this is why the death penalty costs more, now the numbers again. http://nccadp.org... The death penalty costs between $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case, for the reasons I stated, while an average life sentence of 40 years in prison costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. http://okcadp.org... So yes it does cost more. \\\"Furthermore, pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea.\\\" A. Well if the death penalty is in practice, (which I don't agree with) then it should be at a state level. However this is irrelevant because we are arguing over is the death penalty a good idea as it is practiced in the U.S today. Look I already gave you empirical and logical evidence as to why murder rates go down with our without the death penalty, and recent history shows they actually decrease much faster without the death penalty, as the margin between states with the death penalty homicide rates and ones without has actually grew larger from 1990 to 2014. So what my opponent says at the end is fundamentally flawed, as his evidence is simply when the death penalty started murder rates decreased in those states, but from the fact that this trend went on in states with and without the death penalty we can conclude this was not due to the death penalty. Whether the death penalty is evil or not is subjective.\",\n \"Death Penalty\\nIn response to Pro\\\"s argument, I will present two main points that will potentially negate the idea that the death penalty should be legal. First I will talk of the death penalty\\\"s effectiveness and lastly my main opinion on why we should get rid of the death penalty all together. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, I will address the common argument for supporting the death penalty. Some people tend to believe that the death penalty is effective in lowering crime rates, but I will prove why this is wrong. Although crime rates overall have been decreasing, it has no concrete relation to the use of the death penalty. According to FBI statistics from 2012 to 2013, the number of violent crimes had decreased by 4.4 percent (1). While this is an amazing thing for our country, the crime rates have decreased everywhere, even in states without the death penalty. Graph-> http://s3.amazonaws.com... (I am not sure if this link will show up since my others didn't, but it just shows the 15 states without the death penalty, and the 35 states with it). This map of the U.S. shows us that a large majority of the states have legalized the death penalty. So, according to many peoples\\\" arguments, these states should have lower crime rates, right? This isn't so. According to an article in the Huffington Post based on statistics gathered from the FBI, 8 of the top 10 most dangerous states in the U.S. are all states that have legalized the death penalty, with the highest being Tennessee at an average of 643.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people (2). Also, according to another article, the top 2 safest states in the U.S. are both states without the death penalty (3). Now let\\\"s look take a look at crime rates in other countries without the death penalty as well, more specifically, our neighbor Canada. When looking at the comparison of crime rates between Canada and the U.S., a startling thing jumps out at you, Canada\\\"s crime rates are significantly lower. The United States\\\" crime levels are 43% higher, the murder rate is 23 times more, the rape rate is 16 times more, and so on (4). While this doesn't truly prove that having no death penalty is more effective, it does negate the need for a death penalty at all. So, if the death penalty isn't helping lower crime rates (by scaring people into refraining from violent acts), then why do most people believe it should be allowed? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question above takes me into my next point. The reason some people believe it should be allowed is for the simple fact that they hate the criminal for what he/she has done. And they wish to obtain revenge. Although this person has killed or raped/molested another human, that should not condone giving them a death sentence. Killing this human being will not bring back the person that they killed. It will not right their wrong. How, in any way, are we teaching people that murder is wrong if we turn around and do it ourselves? More often than not, life in prison is even worse for a criminal. If we restrict what criminals of capital crimes can do within a prison to working, sleeping, and eating (no Internet for criminals of capital crimes like many prisons have today), we may be able to work on crime like murder without losing our humanity. Also, like my opponent stated before, there are some cases where a criminal was actually found to be innocent after being put to death. Faults like these can be avoided if the death penalty wasn't legal. Likewise, if we get rid of the death penalty, our country will save money as well because cases involving the death penalty are often around twice as much money than cases involving a life-sentence in prison (5). The country must take action with supporting humane ways to deal with criminals of capital offense and must implement counseling for all criminals. We should also encourage classes in high schools across the country to bring awareness to crimes such as murder and rape, and why these crimes should not be committed. We need to bring awareness to these actions, especially since they are seen as socially unacceptable to talk about, so most kids will grow up to be mindful of how serious these crimes are. Instead of going blind to our wrath and using the death penalty, our country must work together to lower crime rates (granted there will ALWAYS be crime) without being hypocrites and condoning the killing of criminals of capital punishment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, the death penalty should be illegal because it doesn't decrease the rate of crimes, and killing criminals out of anger (and a want for revenge) will not support the idea that murdering is wrong, due to the hypocrisy behind the idea. Back to you, Pro :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)\\\"Decrease in Violent Crimes and Property Crimes.\\\" FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. http://www.fbi.gov... (2)McCormack, Simon. \\\"America's Most Dangerous States, Based On Law Street's Analysis Of FBI Crime Statistics.\\\" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Aug. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (3)Frohlich, Thomas C., and Alexander Kent. \\\"The Safest States In America.\\\" 24/7 Wall Street. 2 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. http://247wallst.com... (4)\\\"Canada vs United States Crime Stats Compared.\\\" NationMaster.com. Nation Master. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. http://www.nationmaster.com... (5)\\\"Costs of the Death Penalty.\\\" Costs of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center, 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... *Hopefully my links will show up this time, but I cited my sources just in case\",\n \"Death penalty\\nThe expression an \\\"eye for an eye\\\" is a prescription for proportional justice and capital punishment\",\n \"Criminals fear death and the death penalty\\nPro Death Penalty Webpage - Abolitionists also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death because they do not take time to think about the consequences of their acts. If that were true, then I wonder how police officers manage to arrest criminals without killing them. When a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and tells him to get on the ground, the criminal will comply fully in the vast majority of of these cases. Why would they do that unless they were afraid of the lethal power of the gun? It is because regardless of what abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune to fear! It is a common misconception to believe that fear is a thought process that has to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks in when one is faced with lethal force! The examples below should confirm that point.\",\n \"Death penalty\\n\\\"Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate.\\\" My opponent has failed to explain why any kind of death penalty should be abolished. My opponent did not specify before the debate started that the topic of death penalty was only limited to its current use in the United States. My opponent wishes to make known of his intentions AFTER the debate started. I find this to be an irresponsible condition opposed upon me by my opponent because I accepted this debate only on the conditions of which were supplied at the time of acceptance. At the time, I was accepting the position of 'Pro' for A death penalty. Notice how neither the title of the debate nor anything written in the comments section before the debate started includes anything specific that says \\\"Resolved: The current death penalty system instituted in the United States should be abolished\\\". I am within my bounds to be arguing for a death penalty, not THE death penalty. In this case, I would like to supply some definitions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Death - a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life [1] Penalty - 1. A legal sentence. 2. A punishment for violating rules of procedure. [2] Punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. [3] Voluntary - done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution. [4] Recidivism - the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. [6] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The definition of a death penalty can be construed from the definitions above as a legal sentence subjecting a person to death. My stance on the subject of a death penalty is that a death penalty should remain in the United States, but it should be entirely different than the current death penalty. A decision to undergo the death penalty should be a voluntary choice made by a convict who would have the option of life in prison or death. I have no doubt that a portion of criminals sentenced to life in prison would rather opt for the death penalty than a life sentence. This is evident by the fact that a large number of murder-suicides occur in the United States in which after a person commits murder, they take their own life. The source and evidence for this argument is listed in the first round of the debate. R1: Cost \\\"SO your \\\"the defendant chooses\\\" is false. The judge in the end chooses, defendant just gets to plea to try to weaken the sentence.\\\" It is most definitely not false. In a voluntary death penalty, the defendant WOULD be able to choose. Remember, the argument is not about the current US death penalty, but is about A death penalty. So it is the trial itself under the DP that is expensive. That is what I have said all along. A voluntary death penalty would eliminate the bulk of the cost that it takes to execute a criminal because the legal appeals process which costs the most money would be eliminated. The appeals process exists because convicts who are fighting the state do not want to receive the death penalty. The people who would fight the death penalty in the future would not be sentenced to the death penalty in a voluntary death penalty, they would be sentenced to life in prison, therefore eliminating the appeals process in death penalties that costs the most amount of money in the current death penalty in the US. Also you concede that the DP costs more. I stated that the current death penalty costs more. A voluntary death penalty would cost so much less than the current death penalty, and would cost less than life in prison simply because the costs for food, health and shelter would amount to $0 after the criminal is executed. The states would actually save $1.5 million in living costs per convict if the convict opts for the voluntary death penalty over life in prison [5]. R2: The death penalty does not deter crime. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. Fantastic. Then if deterrence isn't a major issue in deterring crime, then why are you debating that the death penalty doesn't deter crime if any other form of punishment isn't made to deter crime either? If the sole purpose of rules of law aren't even made to deter crime, you have just defeated your own argument. You make it seem that deterrence is a negligible issue. R3: The DP infringes international law. I agree with your statements on the current death penalty. But not all death penalties would violate this law. A voluntary death penalty would allow a convict to have more personal liberties than the current death penalty and a convict would also have the right to life or death based on his choice. R4: Risk of executing innocents I fail to see how an innocent person would want to opt for death under a voluntary death penalty. Even so, it's a person's right to life or death and a government shouldn't be infringing on 'international law' that you cite in this debate because it would infringe on liberty of the person to govern their own body. R5: Death sentences are racist and unfair \\\"Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate.\\\" Like I said above, I am arguing for A death penalty, not the current death penalty. You did not specify that as a condition of the debate when I accepted the debate. Therefore you MUST convince the voters that the United States would be better off without a death penalty, and I am convincing the voters that the United States would be better with A death penalty. Notice that the topic is simply 'Death Penalty' and that you did not provide any additional information to what your resolution was for the debate. Therefore I am obligated to argue within my bounds, and my bounds are that I am arguing for a Death Penalty in the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In conclusion, the United States would be better off with a voluntary death penalty than without one at all. - It would be cheaper than life imprisonment by saving 1.5 million dollars per inmate. - It would give the convict the right to make a decision on their continuation of life. - It would eliminate the possibility of the criminal from being released back into society and committing recidivism. Voters: Because the debate resolution later admitted by my opponent was not provided at the beginning of the debate, I strongly urge you to base your decision on who convinced you more on the argument that a death penalty of some kind is better or worse than any kind of death penalty at all. I hope that after reviewing all of the debate, you make the right decision and vote Pro! :) Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wiktionary.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.heartsandminds.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"death penalty\\nYes because it is just and prevents those rapists and terrible criminals from further harming our society\",\n \"We should redo the death penalty.\\nI want to say thank you Amphia for your willingness to continued to do this debate. You made some very good points. And I'm more than happy to go deeper on this propose discussion. Now of course my proposal for a re-do of the death penalty will be limited. I don't think you fully understand this. But that's fine i will explain this further. You may very well disagree regardless. I will defend what I'm proposing. Trail cost \\\"But how do you define \\\"know for sure\\\"? In the case of mass shootings, it\\\"s going to be pretty obvious who did it\\\". I think you answer your own question to this. Oh how do you know for sure? Because it will be\\\" obvious who did it in cases of mass shootings. This re-do of the death penalty will ONLY target these cases not much else. And yes it will TARGET children being tortured too. I will admit in those cases it will take some time, just like right now. But after the case, and these person or persons are convicted of these crimes. Then it will be death for them. No waiting around just a week or two after being convicted. So, it will still be saving in the long run. I understand in children being tortured cases it will take a little longer. It will take 2 or 4 years. But after that. It will be a fast sentence. Honestly, i don't not know why they should stay alive in jail for who ever knows how long. Just because it morally wrong. They Actually did the morally wrong thing by torturing their children or somebody elses. You still give no answer why they should stay alive in jail. It doesn't add up, for them to stay in jail for the rest of there lives. It will still cost money to feed them, give them medical attention and give them medication. It still add millions of dollars to keep them alive in the long haul. Doesn't make sense to.... Mass murder \\\"Serial killers like the Zodiac is still out\\\" Yeah okay. Justice can't prosecute if they don't have that person. Not everyone going to get caught, unfortunately. But these cases are rare. Just like this guy I going to bring up \\\"He\\\"s blamed for 12 killings, 45 rapes \\\" and authorities don\\\"t know who he is\\\" but \\\"Investigators have matched the East Area Rapist's DNA\\\".(10) http://wgno.com... So, this mean when and if they find this guy. The evidence will be overwhelming, and will not have a problem getting a conviction. But you did bring up another good point. In cases of a Serial killers, it will take longer than a two week period. It may take a year or two. But after they find these Serial killers guilty. It will not be a problem to sentence them to death within a two week time period. You said this \\\"You\\\"re going to let the person walk?\\\" the answer is of course not. In Serial killers cases it may take some time. But when the court has this person it will wait for a trail. And it will wait for the evidence to grow. Then it will wait on what the jurors decide. So, yes it could a little time just like now. But in this re-do the death penalty it will not have any Appeals. Appeals just cost too much. And in my proposal we are looking for the mass shootings as the main concern here. \\\"Black people are more likely to be accused and jailed for crimes they did not commit\\\" Again in my propose new system it not after the everyday crime. It only after the mass shooting, serial killers and children being tortured. \\\"56 out of 97\\\" were white who committed mass shootings. That a 57% white people doing these mass shootings (11) https://www.statista.com... Another pretty interesting stat 'In approximately 90 percent of all homicides the killer and victim are from the same race\\\".(12) https://www.psychologytoday.com... No my system will not end racism. Better education will one day hopefully end racism. But in regards to what i actually meant. The new proposal for the death penalty is only in three main categories. And i already mention what they are. So, really blacks would be in the minorities in these three categories. Now for everyday crime yeah blacks would be very high same with Latino. But my proposal only cover mass shootings, serial killers and children being tortured to death. \\\"wrongfully convicted people who don\\\"t get a chance to appeal\\\" Again my system only target three main area. And that's it. It not for every crime. Heck it not even going to cover somebody murdering one another. And that what happen in my cases dealing with just one murder or even two murders. My system is for more serious crimes three people being killed or higher. \\\"Not humane to let them stay in jail\\\" They proof Solitary Confinement in prisons cause more psychology problem. According to Craig Haney who wrote an article on \\\"Mental health issues in long-term solitary and \\\"supermax\\\" confinement\\\" he added \\\"There are few if any forms of imprisonment that appear to produce so much psychological trauma and in which so many symptoms psychopathology are manifested.\\\"(13) page 125http://journals.sagepub.com... a lot of other proof that it causes more harm. You said \\\"maybe there is hope for them\\\" they is no hope for the criminals I'm referring too. Not the mass murdered and serial killers. I think you getting them confused. Acting like killing 10 or more people is okay, and let them just sit in jail for the rest of they days.\\\" \\\"WHO ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE WHETHER THEIR LIFE IS WORTH LIVIN OR NOT\\\" As for me i'm just telling society another good option on dealing with these horrible people. You making me look like I'm the bad person here. And reality it just the opposite. They committed these horrible crimes not me. And now you want the taxpayers to pay for there every need for the rest of there lives. There lives are worthless the second they started killing 5 to 20 people. If they wanted to die they would had done it. Some try, but couldn't. And if they just committed suicide that would be whatever. But when you bring multiple of others, that's totally different. \\\"Lethal injection becomes inhumane when you use it kill someone. Why is that? Because it\\\"s murder.\\\" it not murder. We wouldn't be sitting here doing this if they hadn't done something so extreme. It there doing. Not the government fault nor society. We'll maybe to a degree. But still they killed 5 or more people, something else have to be done. Instead of them just living life up toward there 70's to 80's. Lethal injection is the safer way. Unless you want to shot them 8n the head. But i rather use the Lethal injection. Less gruesome. You may be right, the government probably wouldn't give back to the people who really need it. But they could. Plus there are many other things the government could spend on while saving in my proposal system. Like schools, infrastructure, hospital, there are many. Shouldn't be spend on these murdered who killed so many people. \\\"Your system would still need long trials in the cases of mass murders and the torturing of children.\\\" i will give you the long trail part for some of these cases. But not the sentencing. Because they are sentence, it would only be a week or two before putting them to the death penalty. Another thing that doesn't add up. It not just the homeless, who have a hard time getting food it regular people too. But the biggest thing is medication and medical attention. These murdered get pills every day and get medical treatment for free. While the poor or regular people like you and me have to paid for our medication or medical treatment. Like i said before in my round 2. It cost the taxpayers an average of 31k a year or higher for these convicted killers. Another 168k or higher just to house these murdered. Most of these murdered live while beyond 20 to 50 years in prison. So add all of this, it well over 4 millions. I have more to say, but it will be continue in the comment area\",\n \"The death penalty should be allowed\\nAnd why is it just? If you are trying to stop killing, it makes absolutely NO sense to kill people!\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be abolished\\nI'll preface this with two things: One, this is my first debate, so I apologize in advance if I have some stylistic things that need to be worked out. Two, I'm in the middle of my finals, so I apologize again if my responses take longer than you would like. Now to refuting your arguments. The Death Penalty - Murder is defined as \\\"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.\\\" As such the act of killing some one with the death penalty is not murder by definition because the government does not recognize it as such. Additionally, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history, and is even advocated in the Bible repeatedly in acts such as stoning children who act against their parents, or any other number of sinners. You said that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, so then is it nor morally reprehensible if there is a war? Then we must look at what war is? It is simply when a country believes it has been wronged by another entity, as such, if a country believes some entity, be it another state, a terrorist faction, or a person, is of sufficient threat to its citizens it has the right then to fight back and kill. Is that not essentially what the death penalty is? - You said\\\"Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, \\\"I would but I don't want to get the death penalty.\\\" You do hear, \\\"I would. I don't want to go to jail.\\\"\\\" Is it not redundant to say that it is the status quo for humans to not wish to die. As such you don't hear people say \\\"I don't want to get the death penalty\\\" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. In effect, I would just have to generally disagree with you on this point, crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death. - \\\"It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes.\\\" Is killing them not forcing them to pay for their crimes? - \\\"The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully.\\\" This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law, and look for reasons that they should be allowed another appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. They can not do this if they are dead. - \\\"Capital punishment is cruel and unusual... It is destroying American values\\\" Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual, every effort has been taken to see to it that the prisoner in question does not feel any pain in their passing, which is much more a service than they probably gave to their victims. In fact, going back in time, a quick painless death came about with the invention of the guillotine, which arguably is much better than the lethal injection with regards to quick, painless death. - \\\"The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as racial, ethnic and religious minorities.\\\" While this statement may appear to have some substance, it can not be taken at face value. Unfortunate as it may be, the percentages of people within the U.S. prison system are in the majority for \\\"the poor,...racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.\\\" However, whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate. - \\\"The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.\\\" I'd like you to expand on this if you can, because with a statement this vague I don't know how to defend my position against it. If you are speaking about the cases in which it is used, then yes, it may very well vary. However this is because the states are allowed to determine whether or not capital punishment is acceptable, and if it is, under what scenarios. This is an example of the states deciding what coincides with the belief systems and the needs of its residents. This is a good thing because it allows the citizens to dictate the world they live in. - \\\"Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state. People are released from jail constantly for crimes they did not commit. Imagine if you were suddenly murdered for a crime you did not commit.\\\" While this does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be \\\"suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit,\\\" there is nothing sudden about the death penalty. - \\\"A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.\\\" This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime. - \\\"Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.\\\" While this is true, it is not the actual act of capital punishment, but rather the court fees for all of the additional litigation, which as i said before may be present in a non-capital court case. - \\\"The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system and make speedy trials impossible as well.\\\" I think I've touched on this enough. However, the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding. - \\\"We as a society have to move away from the \\\"eye for an eye\\\" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.\\\" Wasn't \\\"an eye for an eye\\\" one of the first rules set down in Hammurabi's code which was one of the stepping stones for civilization to begin to advance because we had law? Although yes we do need to advance, beyond an eye for an eye, this does not detract from the potential benefit of ridding the world of a mass murderer, or rapist or what have you. - \\\"It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? ... Should we rape people who rape people? No lesson is learned.\\\" This simply does not make sense, it is fallacious logic. It is not a Gov does this to Person X because Person X did this to Citizen Y. Rather it is more government gets rid of Person X because they did this ti Citizen Y and it is believed that they have the potential to do said act again and it is more beneficial for the community to be rid of Person X. The way our laws are set up in no way reflect the scenarios you described. Death is just another level of separation between the public masses and the criminal; albeit a permanent one. - \\\"Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures.\\\" Honestly I think our stance on the death penalty is a low priority to other countries. What I think they are more concerned about is the \\\"murdering\\\" of Iraqis by American troops in the scenario you said earlier would make killing acceptable. If that is so, why are they so angry about our invasions and war? - \\\"Most jury members ... murderers roam free.\\\" Again partially true, jury members are reluctant to convict if it means the person will receive the death penalty, but then again we don't want them to feel comfortable sending some one to their death, the death penalty makes them treat the case that much more seriously. Also there are usually lesser charges brought against the defendant that the jurors could still find him/her guilty on, without the death penalty. - \\\"The prisoner's family ... appeals process.\\\" Yes, and isn't it horrible how much they must grieve... a strange parallel between them and the victim's family. Only it was not the victim who brought the prisoners family into a situation that would cause them pain.\",\n \"Death Penalty\\nI believe the death penalty is unconstitutional. It violates human rights, and me being a Christian, it goes against the ten commandments but that's just my say.\",\n \"The death penalty should exist.\\nI will be making a follow up argument and hopefully correcting any misinformed or wrongfully written statements. I will also be removing the citation numbers on your passages when I cite your work, since we are using the same referencing method. (I want to remove confusion) \\\"The most popular punishment for states without the death penalty that want an intense penalty would be life in prison without any possibility of parole.\\\" I agree it is, however, many criminals simply are not getting this time, prisons are becoming over populated because of bad laws like minor drug offenses being labelled with hefty time in prison, gang related crimes and theft [3] \\\"Also, the idea of executing people that refuse psychological help is immoral at its core and is currently illegal. The insane (or mentally ill) cannot be executed, for it is unconstitutional.\\\" It is and I apologise for the way my description ended, it was not meant to be taken that way, after re-reading it I see how that perspective could be met; I meant as in, if a criminal that has murdered, raped or abused someone refuses psychological help and they are being released, (because of our TERRIBLE justice system) why shouldn't they be put up for the death penalty? I don't mean to swing the accusation stick around, but what do you think should happen to criminals that just don't get these hefty charges due to race, location or pay rate?[1] Morals / Ethics: I would suggest that ending someone's life peacefully is a better alternative to making them psychologically disabled and unable to cope in the real world if ever released after an extended period of time. I personally know two people that were in prison for only 3 years for assault, they are not the same. something in them is broken. They wake up screaming and run at the site of their name. 10+ years would destroy a person. However, giving them luxury does not fit the justice required. So we are in a period of displacement, do we... treat them well in an isolated environment even though it is only preventing them from doing crimes and not teaching them a lesson... it's not justice, do what is just and damage them entirely psychologically, do we end their life peacefully. Basically, are we preparing them for life in the real world, or are we enforcing and breaking them until they die? If they go back into society, damaging them is only going to lead them back to a lifestyle they were comfortable with. Overpopulation: There is currently a serious problem of overpopulation within the prisons, leading to a lack of safety for security and a risk of rioting, and possibly, a mass escape.[2] \\\"By saying that these prisoners are able to live a happy life with luxury is a very big exaggeration.\\\" 'A prison officer who has worked at Cardiff for 15 years said last week that inmates were simply sitting in their cells watching snooker on television or playing computer games.' [4] 'The death penalty is not the only way to keep them from recommitting, and from the harms of the death penalty as I stated above, we simply cannot allow it.' Prison sentences and the death penalty does not deter crime rates[5]. The death penalty is a viable option for people who are at risk to other people, and security guards. I am not disputing that life in prison would sound better than the death penalty... if they couldn't find loop holes, but there are crafty lawyers out there.[6] I apologise if my argument seems over the place, it's very late and I am very tired. I will construct my stance more accurately in the next round. In summary so far: The death penalty appears to be a viable option, the price isn't the prisons fault, nor is it the expense of the poisons used, but the court cases that take place, regardless of being on death row or not. The court cases cost the government A LOT of money anyway. I have given evidence suggesting my claims were in deed accurate. prisons are becoming over populated, prisoners are either getting no punishment or complete punishment. There is no balance. This doesn't mean the death penalty is a viable option, however for prisoners getting released, being broken or being the same is not going to help rehabilitate society. The death penalty should be in place for people we can't have in society anymore. I have shown evidence of cases where people do use loop holes eventually. The death penalty is a useful tool. References: http://www.heraldnet.com... [1] http://www.abc.net.au... [2] http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6]\",\n \"Death penalty\\nLife in prison deters crime/murder as well as the death penalty\",\n \"The Death Penalty\\nThe Con seems to be approaching this debate from a more real-world perspective than the somewhat philosophical take I have on the debate, but we'll see how this goes. As previously stated, my argument is on two main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment In my attempt to prove that certain crimes can deserve death, I will focus mainly on how the death penalty is a logical extension of the concept of human rights and how it is the state's duty to enforce it: 1. On my first point, I will start by examining why we have rights in a legal context. In human society, we operate on the principle that everyone has a certain set of inalienable human rights and are to be treated equally. However, why should these rights be inalienable? Why are human rights distinct from animal rights? We are not equal as humans, some are faster, some stronger than others. Yet in the eyes of the law we are treated as such. This is because we all share the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. We accept responsibilities. The entire concept of human and legal rights is that one's rights are equal to the responsibilities one accepts. If one rejects responsibility, by that logic, one forfeits rights. A prime example of this is in the mentally handicapped. Those who are mentally ill and pose a threat to themselves and others have greatly diminished rights, but equally diminished responsibilities. A mentally ill person does not for example, have the right to vote, but they also have less responsibility in the eyes of the law, because of their handicap. We operate on the understanding that one must abide by the same rules as all, or else suffer equal or greater punishment to their transgression. This is why we use imprisonment as a deterrent. Prisoners, of course, also lose the right to vote among others because of their rejection of their responsibilities. Think of a dog. We do not afford a dog the same rights we do a human, and so we do not hold a dog to the same responsibilities. If a dog mauls a child to death, they are put down. However if a human murders a child, they are not. Why not, though? Assuming that person to be perfectly mentally healthy, they have the same faculty for moral reasoning as any other human and can be held to the same responsibilities as any other human. They have abdicated their responsibility to respect life, and should have forfeited their right to life. If a human being does not behave as a human should, they should not be treated as human. Human rights are deserved because of our ability to understand and respect them, not simple biological similarities. It is the duty of the state to punish the abdication of responsibility with the removal of equal rights. Imprisoning a murderer for 20 years, for example, is much like fining a man €5,000 for stealing €10,000. Punishment must always fit the crime. Certain acts when performed by a mentally capable human being amount to a deficient moral compass. Fundamentally rejecting human morality, and therefore rejecting the rights afforded to all humans. What are we to define these acts as? What acts are fundamental violations of human morality? Murder, rape, and any permutations of the aforementioned, are good examples. Any crime in which the perpetrator is likely to reoffend and society will be better off without. I only propose a model wherein the elimination of the perpetrator benefits society. I will go on to define how the elimination of these people is a good thing for society as a whole. On my first point I have sought to prove that: a) Certain acts can indeed negate one's right to life I intend to expand upon this in later rounds. 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against reoffence. As previously discussed, I am going to attempt to prove that society can benefit from the elimination of certain criminals. Why, though? Surely it is better to rehabilitate? Indeed, there is some weight to this, but certain severe crimes have high rates of reoffence. This is a symptom of having no moral compass whatsoever. Society is better off without those who have not the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. Ultimately, one without morality is as good as an animal. These criminals are dangerous in prison, and imprisonment is not a sufficient deterrent to them as these criminals are most likely to thrive in a prison environment. I refer to murderers, rapists, drug dealers, (specifically of hard drugs) gangland crime, etc. Such people are very difficult to punish correctly. In prison, they establish a dominance, and if they are ever to be released will at once return to crime. Rehabilitation is not a likelihood with such criminals and as such, it is not worth the state's while affording them the same rights as others. These people are a burden on society, and their elimination is not a bad thing. We negate the possibility of future crimes by them. In this point I have attempted to prove that: b) It benefits society to eliminate individuals who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed these offences and it is therefore a duty of the state to do so. Those two statements a and b are the foundation of my argument. I am seeking to prove that the death penalty should be implemented, not that it functions as it is in America, as I feel I made quite clear with my definition. I eagerly await Con's reply, thank you.\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.\\nFor this round, I will focus solely on refuting the two weak opening contentions put forward by my oppoent. First Contention - \\\"Innocent Executions\\\" Claim: The US government has executed innocent people before, and should not be allowed to take this risk. Examples of innocent executions include Cameron Willingham[1], Carlos DeLuna[2], and the Meeks[3]. Fact: There isn't a single documented case of a wrongful execution in the United Statesover as Supreme Court Justice Scalia has pointed out, \\\"not a single case-not one-in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops.\\\" Case 1) Cameron Willingham - the citation was an article in the Chicago Tribune that casted doubt on the expert testimony of arson that was part of the original trial. I would point to several articles in the Dallas Morning News that show while the arson investigation methods were outdated, they investigation by the Tribune didn't rule out arson either. This is also true in the investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which couldn't rule out arson. All these investigation did was look at the arson investigation techniques used at the time and never examined the inconsistencies in his story. (As for citation, you have to do a search in the paper's archive.) It is telling that his lawyer, David Martin, said \\\"There was no question whatsoever that he was guilty.\\\" [1] His ex-wife, and mother to the dead children, believed he did it. [2] For me, this is a case of the media, and anti-death penalty groups, creating a false narrative that excludes the other evidence presented in the case to push an agenda. Case 2) Carlos DeLuna - the citation used is an article in the Guardian U.K. that pointed to a study by Professor James Liebman and 12 students published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. I would first point out that Professor Liebman is a longtime anti-death penalty advocate and there is reasons to be skeptical given his other dubious studies on the subject. Such as his study finding \\\"serious error\\\" in capital cases [3]. When you look at the details and the actual cases, what you find is not the unreliability of lower courts but the Supreme Court, which retroactively changes the rules. He used cases from the Rose Bird era of the California Supreme Court which an ideological justice reversed all death penalty cases and these frivolous examples are cited as examples of \\\"reversible errors\\\" [4]. I would also add that you should consider the politics of Columbia University where convicted cop killer and Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin is an adjunct professor at Columbia University\\\"s School of Social Work and serves as director of the school\\\"s \\\"Criminal Justice Initiative\\\" [5]. The extreme politics at Columbia are well known [6]. In this case, the murder occured in 1983 and the execution was carried out in 1989 [7]. So bear in mind this study comes nearly 30 years after the crime. Carlos Deluna had only been out of prison for six weeks prior to the murder. He was convicted of improper use of a motor vehicle and attempted rape, served 3 years, paroled, and then attacked and attempted to rape the mother of a friend, which caused his parole to be revoked and he was sent back to prison [8]. Somehow attempted rape breaking several ribs of your victim doesn't qualify as a violent criminal past in the case of DeLuna according to Liebman. The story Liebman gives was that Deluna was present while another guy committed the crime and he decided his best course of action was to run a short distance and hide under a truck and just happen to have the same amount of money that was taken from the store. And this is how the testimony of the two eyewitnesses is dismissed as well. Nevermind that DeLuna testified at his trial that he was at a skating ring with Mary Ann Perales who testified that he was not with her. The lead prosecutor and one DeLuna's defense have stated that Liebman never spoke with them about the case [9]. Liebman lied [10] when he claimed there is no evidence that the store was robbed despite the fact that during trial the store owner testified about the amount of money missing, which happened to be the same amount found on DeLuna in a wad in addition to his wallet that only had two one-dollar bills. It seems a bit dubious that Hernandez bragged about the killing after DeLuna's conviction, which didn't ever come out until Liebman's investigators showed up many years later. Don't forget that even if he hadn't delievered the killing blow, under the felony-murder rule he still could have been charged and convicted and that if he had gotten life without parole, he would have died or be rotting till he died in prison. I am far from convinced this is a case of an innocent man being executed. Case 3) Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin - this is a case where I would have to agree that two men were wrongly executed but we're talking about a murder that occured in 1913 and I don't think a century old case is a sufficient basis to attack the criminal justice system today and further argue we end capital punishment. Claim: This system is clearly fallible and yet serves an irreversible purpose - to legally murder people. Fact: According to Justice Scalia, \\\"[L]et\\\"s give the professor the benefit of the doubt: let\\\"s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren\\\"t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent\\\"or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.\\\" [11] As for the argument that capital punishment is equal to \\\"legal murder,\\\" I would counter that this is faulty moral logic. I can offer the following examples: arresting and holding a murder suspect in jail till trial doesn't draw charges of legally kidnapping people and holding them against their will. The same can be said of saying rape is the moral equivilent of sex because both end in sexual contact. This faulty logic completey denies context and is an all to common charge leveled by the anti-death penalty crowd. Claim: Should a system which allows for error, allow for the potential (and in some cases fulfilled potential) of mistakes to be made and incorporated when combined with an irreversible outcome? No - not when compared to alternatives. Fact: Well, every single human system on earth is going to have some degree of error possible and a lack of perfection is hardly a basis for abolishment. Following a conviction in a capital case, there is variance among the states, but there are 8 levels of appeal [12]. Following a trial, and a conviction, the defendant gets at automatic appeal to the State Court of Criminal Appeals. It either affirms the conviction or overturns the conviction, sentence, or both. If the court affirmed the conviction, the defendant can make a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the discretion to either hear the case or turn it down. If turned down, the defendant can then begin State Habeas Corpus proceedings with the State Court of Criminal Appeals. If denied, the defendant can begin with Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings in U.S. District Court. If denied, the defendant can the make an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. If denied, the defendant can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review. If the decision is upheld, then a defendent can seek Executive Clemency from the Governor of the state. If this fails, then the defendant awaits their execution date. This is a pretty lengthy system that affords murderers ample opportunity to fight a conviction, especially more than any murder victim was given to fight their death sentence. And that process can hardly be called potential for wrongful execution and in many cases, thanks in part to your advocacy, murderers can skirt their capital sentence. As for the alternative: consider Mr. DeLuna who you cited and if he had been convicted and sentenced to life without parole, Mr. Liebman wouldn't have studied his case and Mr. DeLuna would have sat in a prison until he died. Excuse me for objecting, but I'm having a hard time from balking at this silly moralizing - they can still be killed while in prison or serve a life term and die in prison. If imperfection and death are enough to give call for abolishment, then we could eliminate our roads and highways, which result in thousands of people dying every year. Claim: But there is also potential for death row innocence, too. As of 21st December 2012, 142 inmates on death row have been released. It is clear from this that the possibility is high that some of our criminals weren't really criminals; they would have died alone, in disgrace, and innocent. Fact: It is clear the possibility is not high; I can take your 142 inmates and use the old 2008 number of 7,000 given a death sentence since 1973 and that calculates to about 2% or a success rate of 98% - extremely low and rare. I would further dispute this list - the DPIC list equates acquittal and dismissals with actual innocence, cases reversed for legal insufficiency instead of innocence, case where evidence of guilt was excluded, defendants that were actual perpetrators/principals, and doesn't allow for review of actual innoncence [13]. At this point that 142 gets really small, but even assuming 142, in the end all you proved was that the system worked in terms of the multiple levels of appeal available to defendants. To me this just demonstrates the horribly dishonest length anti-death penalty zealots are willing to go to fabricate a case. (Due to the 10,000 limitation, I am forced to hold back my rebuttal to the second contention as well as the conclusion. Also sources.)\",\n \"States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty\\nThe State should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com... On April 1, 2013 the district attorney for Arapahoe County, George Brauchler, announced that they would be seeking the death penalty for James E Holmes. Prior to this announcement, The Defense had offered to plea guilty to all charges in order to avoid the death penalty. Positions: Me: I will be arguing for this position. PRO You: Will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of plea. Format of the Debate: Round 1 Administrative Round please state the following: \\\"I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regadless of the plea of the defendant\\\" Round 2 Me: Opening Statement You: Opening Statement / First Rebuttal Round 3 Me: First Rebuttal / Questions to Opposing side (3 Max) You: Questions to Opposing Side (3 Max) / Answers to Questions Round 4 Me: Answers to Questions / Response to Answers You: Response to Answers / Final Arguments or Rebuttals Round 5 Me: Final Arguments or Rebuttals / Closing Statements You: Closing Statements If you have no questions simply state : \\\"I have no questions for my opponent\\\" Good luck!\",\n \"Death Penalty\\nI believe the death penalty is wrong on a moral standpoint and from a logical standpoint: 1. State-sanction murder/Immoral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can we as a society tell people not to murder and then turn around and say \\\"but the state can!\\\" The death penalty is murder. mur\\\"der G2;mərdər/Submit noun 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. You might argue that it is legal but I say it violates our 8th amendment which states: \\\"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\\\" The death penalty is cruel punishment. If someone commits a horrendous act, I am not saying they should be excused, I am saying they should not be murdered by the state. The death penalty is also dangerous. We run the risk of killing innocent people. Many states have reopened cases where there might have been a chance that the person was wrongfully killed. We already mess up on prison sentence, sending people to prison for 19 years for crimes they did not commit. What makes you think it won't happen in death penalty cases? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Costly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Common Dreams: \\\"The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades.\\\" https://www.commondreams.org... One example of this is in Oregon where: \\\"in 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year.\\\" https://oadp.org... Furthermore: \\\"According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel... ...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have \\\"uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. And let's not forget about appeals: in Idaho, the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (downloads as a pdf): almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant. New York state projected that the death penalty costs the state $1.8 million per case just through trial and initial appeal.\\\" https://www.forbes.com... So the death penalty uses up more money and time than a non-capital case. Contrary to popular belief, combining the full case costs of a non-capital trial vs the full case cost of a capital trial, death penalty in the end costs way more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Unjust/Racially Charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death penalty has also been proven to be biased towards white people and against people of color. The death penalty is also more likely to be applied when the defendant is black and the victim is white.. Martin O'Malley, JD, the former Governor of Maryland asserts: \\\"Our nation's legacy of slavery and racial injustice find continued offense in our use of the death penalty. Our death row population is more than 40% black -- nearly three times the proportion of the general population.\\\" \\\"The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black. Race is a \\\"potent influence\\\" at every step in the criminal (in)justice system, including search, arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, sentence, and execution.\\\" https://www.commondreams.org... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Not evidence of deterrence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime whatsoever. Why are wasting taxpayer dollars for something that doesn't even have any benefits? \\\"Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the US when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s and the second greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital punishment on crime...\\\" https://deathpenalty.procon.org... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. No healing And finally, my last argument is that the death penalty provides no healing. \\\"\\\"To me, the death penalty also is something else \\\" a sad reminder of how our justice system typically offers punishment instead of healing for the survivors of violent crime\\\"For a growing number of victims of violence, the thought of honoring our loved ones by killing another human being is not only counter-intuitive, but abhorrent.\\\" How does killing another human make us feel better? At the end of the day, the victim's families still feel the pain, the loss, and the agony of their loved one being taken away. https://deathpenalty.procon.org...\",\n \"The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.\\nJustice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1. 1 \\\"Saving Lives and Money.\\\" The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. improve this \",\n \"should the death penalty be allowed for drugs\\nunless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them.\",\n \"Death penalty\\ni disagree death penalty. Death penalty is immoral and it can kill innocent people too.\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States\\n1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement Con main argument so far is cost. Criminal justice is always expensive, but citizens think justice makes it worthwhile to prosecute serious crimes despite the cost. We should be willing to pay what it takes to obtain justice. Still, the claim that life sentences are cheaper is false. There are three elements of cost involved with a death penalty: 1. The court costs properly associated with extra scrutiny The claimed savings supposes that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole can be imposed without extra scrutiny. In fact, if there is any savings at all, it is small. Only about 6% of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project involved death row inmates. [4] They are apply a high level of scrutiny to crimes that would include life without parole. Moreover, inmates convicted of life without parole are certainly going to want to file every appeal possible to get the sentence reduced, and the government is obliged to pay the costs of the prosecution and the defense in those cases. The appeals in such case can go on for the life of the inmate. 2. The court costs incurred unreasonably in defending the laws that permit execution Much of the current costs of pursuing he death penalty involves challenges to the death penalty itself. Courts eager to overturn the death penalty are allowing appeals on such grounds as the drug used for the lethal injection must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. [8. http://www.truth-out.org...] The wording of the present resolution eliminates challenges to the death penalty itself, which can accomplished by legislation. 3. The costs of confining inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security The main costs are actually in housing the inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security confinement. Death row mainly involves a higher level of security, and that includes single-occupant cells rather than two-inmate cells. The premise of the cost savings is that murderers sentenced to life imprisonment rather than execution are safer, and hence may be mixed with the general inmate population. There are no grounds for that assumption. The convicted killer has a free pass to kill inmates or guards, or to escape and kill civilians. No extra penalty is available to deter such action, and data [5] shows there is serious threat. Con has offered as a solution to the problem of \\\"free pass\\\" killings is that extra-high security confinement be used to prevent it. That's exactly the cost that eliminating the death penalty is alleged to save. California is used as an example of the high costs. Virtually no one has been executed in California, due to obstructions sustained by California Courts. Consequently, nearly all inmates are kept in high security until they die of natural causes. Actually carrying out executions reduces those costs substantially. Ohio, for example, as much lower costs because they actually perform executions. A California official said, “They are much more willing to exercise their capital punishment system [in Ohio] than California, thus alleviating one of the pressures that our state wrestles with,” [9. http://www.bloomberg.com... ] The net result is a minor cost increase is suffered by extra scrutiny, but very substantial savings are obtained by not having to maintain the inmate in maximum security for a lifetime. The death penalty saves money. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal I cited the case of parents executed in front of their children by a contract killer, and asked if justice demand the death penalty. Con brushed aside the question and said that being confined for life was punishment enough. Well, who gets to ultimately decide what is adequate? Juries decide when justice demands the death penalty. [10. http://abcnews.go.com...] In a democracy, the public ought to decide. About two-thirds of the states have the death penalty. As to life being worse, even serial killers are willing to plea bargain to get rid of the possibility of a death sentence. Neither the public nor the killers are confused about the issue. 2+. Execution saves innocent lives Con has not presented a single case of an innocent person being freed. I carefully spelled out why the 17 cases were people who would not necessarily have been executed, and even the Innocence Project itself makes no claim of lives saved. Even though no cases of wrongful executions are established, I granted that there were likely a few. Con cites the page I referenced as having no killings by escapees after 1989. There are, however, killing of guards and inmates after that date, and those count as unnecessary deaths. However, I had noted that the page was an incomplete list. A web search reveals many recent cases. in 2008 an escape killed his wife and child http://www.denverpost.com... in 1997 an escapee killed his wife http://www.sacbee.com... in 2010, two escaped murderers killed an elderly couple http://www.blogforarizona.com... in 1999 a convicted murder killed a prison guard http://amarillo.com... I found eight additional cases of convicted murderers who escaped being recaptured before they killed again. Con's claim that modern technology precludes escape is wrong. No one keeps a careful list, so there are probably many more lives lost in avoiding executions. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics Con cites one case of a conviction that was overturned under scrutiny and no recent cases of false executions. Better forensics does not reduce the number of murderers caught and subject to execution. I eliminates false convictions, but DNA provides solid evidence to convict many others who would have gone free in past times. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Con claims that automobiles provide a benefit in return for the 30,000 innocent lives lost, but he fails to see a benefit to executions. A primary benefit is that justice is done, but it also saves the lives of those the convicted would subsequently kill, it deters murder particularly by the incarcerated, it saves substantial amounts of money on holding murderers for life, and plea bargains save money, solve cases, and provide closure to victims families. 5+. Justice deters crime Con argues that it is Japanese culture that produces their low crime rate, not their use of the death penalty. But what is it about the culture that lowers crime rates? I don't see what racial minorities have to do with it. It isn't the death penalty by itself, but rather that the society as a whole cares a great deal about providing justice, and justice in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Con points out that foreigners in Japan commit more crimes. Indeed, foreigners are unlikely to come from a culture so concerned with administering true justice, so they are more likely believe they can get away with commiting a serious crime. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining Con argues plea bargaining can also occur under a life sentence. Right, \\\"Plead guilty and we will give you a Kindle in your life sentence without parole. Otherwise go to trial and risk losing the Kindle.\\\" The prospect of death is more compelling. The leverage is so great that it alone is reason enough for having a death penalty. It works even if the death penalty is rarely carried out, because the downside to the felon is so great.\",\n \"Death Penalty\\nOne who causes death shall expierence actions taken against them. See, the death penalty should only be used on the worst criminal, such as Charles Manson. These men have torn families apart, and it would be nice to have a solution. The Death penalty is not the solution to everything, but Charles Manson's erratic behavior is quite annoying and he has been imprisoned for over 40 or more years. Charles Manson purposley goes to parole hearings just so he can show how crazy he is, it would be nice to have this problem dissapere.\",\n \"Death penalty\\nThe death penalty is uncharacteristic of a decent society\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States\\nThank you, Roy, for posting your final argument. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal My opponent points out that because the community favors the death penalty, the lack of a death penalty would require a dangerous non-democratic elite. However, there is another alternative: the death penalty should not be legal, so therefore the people should not supprot it. Democracy is not inherently right; such an idea would commit the is-ought fallacy. During much of America's history, the majority supported slavery; does that mean that slavery \\\"should\\\" have been legal? The \\\"should\\\" in the resolution implies that my goal in this debate is to explain why the people should stop supporting the death penalty. If my opponent is allowed to assume that with a legal death penalty comes an overhaul of the system to eliminate wasteful trials, then I am allowed to assume that the people should oppose the death penalty, and therefore the death penalty should be illegal. My opponent has no response regarding the risk of 5-4 court decisions. Additionally, regarding the \\\"safeguards against wrongful executions,\\\" my opponent seems to want to disassemble many components of the trial process; would such revision continue to have support from the Supreme Court, given how shaky they already are? 2+. Execution saves innocent lives With my opponent's intentions of executing prisoners with little time for the Innocence Project, the 17 freed prisoners would indeed have been executed. The Innocence Project does not make this claim because they are not aware of my opponent's plans. Regarding the ten executions listed, the site claims that they are wrongful, but have yet to be confirmed by the state; this makes it rather unlikely that any of them were proper executions. My opponent incorrectly assumes that 35 is an upper bound, but this does not include the unknown number of innocents executed that were not caught by the Innocence Project, the state's revision process (which has already been sourced as imperfect), and the ten infamous cases. 35 is instead more likely a lower bound. My opponent argues that in a life sentence, there will be murders of inmates and guards; however, he has never given an example of this under maximum security. He has only used numerous examples from medium or minimum security. I was never expecting a list of deaths in maximum security prison, but we don't even have a single example from which to conclude anything. My opponent's final comparison of eight to 33 assumes that all mistaken executions are later realized, which is almost definitely false, and that those 33 prisoners were under the same security that someone my opponent would give the death penalty would be under, which is also false. My claim of \\\"increased security\\\" was mistaken by my opponent as \\\"supermax,\\\" but only maximum security, which is already legal, is necessary, making this point irrelevant. Concluding this contention, switching prisoners from the death sentence to a life sentence under maximum security would not increase the murder count at all, because all of the examples of breakout murders occured under sub-maximum security. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics It may be more difficult for a framing or bribery to work, but it is far from impossible. I already cited a case in which it nearly succeeded; had a few fewer mistakes been made, it would have succeeded. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error My opponent again compares the risk of driving to the risk of execution. Since Round 1, I've pointed out that the use of automobiles benefits everybody in the world outstrips the benefit of executing murderers \\\"by factors easily past the billions.\\\" Anything true for one is a far cry from guaranteed for the other. This is somewhat of a subjective point, so direct debating is difficult. The cost argument I mentioned in this contention, although it is also its own separate contention, to be discussed later. 5+. Justice deters crime My opponent claims that \\\"the death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society.\\\" However, if we look at many Western countries and states, we could also see that the lack of a death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society. This isn't relevant to whether the death penalty deters crime at all. Regarding the statistics that I cited, their key points were the conclusions of criminologists and a study by the United Nations, neither of which would have the problems that my opponent supposes. Comparisons made between states compared bordering states with similar rural and urban makeups. My quote from the FBI that \\\"[i]n no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty\\\" goes unchallenged. Constant-culture studies are not as relevant to the death penalty in the United States as a study of effects in America itself, and we apparently don't see the death penalty as a deterrent, which is all that matters. 1-. Costs Death row itself is, apparently, more expensive than the maximum security that nobody can seem to break out of. A life sentence doesn't need death row security, but only maximum security. My opponent points to things that inflate the costs, but through much of this debate, I've been using statistics from Texas, which my opponent admits has relatively inexpensive executions, making those points moot. It is true that I never made any repsonse to defend supermax security, but that is because, as I said last round, supermax security is unnecessary when maximum security provides enough security to prevent escapes and murders. Plea bargaining from the death penalty may help with the costs slightly, but by the millions? Unlikely. As for the freeing of police, they would already be freed from the death penalty trials that occupy so much of the court's time, as I have already cited. In conclusion, the death penalty is unnecessarily expensive and kills more innocent people than it saves, with benefits not worth the trouble. Thank you, RoyLatham, for this debate. Good luck with the rest of the tournament.\",\n \"Death penalty\\nThe death penalty doesn't deter crime. If anything more and more people will commit crimes under the death penalty. More people will try to see what they can get away with under the death penalty. It's much better to have prison. Not clean, conformtable prisons like the ones we have now, but rather real dark prisons. It's better to let a criminal rot for what he has done than to give him a nice quick death.\",\n \"Capital punishment\\nMy OPP made sound arguments it is just that as he stated \\\"I think that judges need to contemplate what punishment would be suitable for a particular criminal, and if the DP is seen as suitable, then so be it.\\\" Well there is no room for emotions and hot-headed behavior in the judicial system. A judge can be biased. Our system of criminal justice for all its protections is sufficiently fallible that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes. The morality of the death penalty has been hotly debated for almost a century in the U.S. The debate has swayed both ways, resulting in a moratorium on the punishment and a change in the procedure for applying the punishment. The institution of the death penalty in the United States is a fallible, unconstitutional and grossly abused appendage of the judicial system. One major argument against the death penalty highlights the fact that killing a person ends their right to due process. Once a person is dead they can no longer appeal their conviction, so even if new evidence comes forward, the person remains dead. The death penalty is the most final and unforgiving punishment imaginable. This poses problems because our system is fallible and prone to error. That is why the appeals process exists, so that errors can be corrected. In a system that prides itself on the importance of the appeals process the death penalty remains as the juggernaut of punishments. If the death penalty is cruel and it is a fallible system in which innocents have been executed, does this mean that the State if guilty of murder? Under a representative democracy there is no absolute leader that is placed above the law. Because murders have been committed and they have been done so in a systematic manner, doesn't this then mean the State has murdered? Many people would argue that the State has to be able to make mistakes, because it is a institution of humanity. If the punishment is absolute and final, shouldn't the State doing the punishing be fallible? The idea of a State that can be wrong convicting and executing its citizens is everything the framers of the Constitution stood against. People that have been proven innocent after execution: http://listverse.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (1) Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 In February 1983, Wanda Lopez, was stabbed to death during her night shift at the gas station where she worked. After a manhunt, police found De Luna hiding under a truck. Recently released from prison, he was violating his parole by drinking in public. De Luna told police that he was innocent and he offered the name of the person who he saw at the gas station. Police ignored the fact that he did not have a drop of blood on him even though the crime scene was covered in blood. The single eyewitness confirmed to police that De Luna was the murderer after police told him he was the right guy. At trial De Luna named Carlos Hernandez as the man he saw inside the gas station, across the street from the bar where De Luna had been drinking. Hernandez and DeLuna were strikingly similar in appearance but, unlike DeLuna, Hernandez had a long history of knife attacks similar to the convenience store killing and repeatedly told friends and relatives that he had committed the murder. Friends confirmed that he was romantically linked to Lopez as well. De Luna's lawyers knew of Hernandez's criminal past but never thoroughly investigated his previous crimes. On December 7, 1989, Texas executed 27-year old Carlos De Luna. (2) Larry Griffin executed in 1995 On June 26, 1980 in St. Louis 19-year-old Quintin Moss was killed in a drive-by shooting. The conviction was based largely on the testimony from Robert Fitzgerald a white career criminal, who was at the scene at the time of the murder. He testified that he saw three black men in the car when shots were fired and that Griffin shot the victim through the window of the car with his right hand. This was Griffin's attorneys first murder trial and he did not challenge the testimony even though Griffin was left-handed. He also failed to bring forth an alibi witness who was with Griffin at the time of the murder. Griffin's fingerprints were not found on the car or the weapon all evidence against him was circumstantial. There is evidence that suggests Fitzgerald was promised a reduce sentence in exchange for his testimony. The prosecution also failed to address that there were two other witnesses who confirmed that Griffin did not commit the murder and they were able to name the three men who did. Appeals courts upheld his conviction and death sentence. Griffin was executed by lethal injection on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence right up to his execution. In 2005, a professor University of Michigan Law School reopened the case. His investigation concluded that Griffin was innocent. (3) Leo Jones executed 1998 On May 23, 1981 in Jacksonville, FL police officer Thomas Szafranski killed when shots were fired at his police cruiser when he was stopped at an intersection. Within minutes police officers busted into Leo Jones' apartment where they found Jones and his cousin, Bobby Hammonds. Police took both men in for questioning and then charged Jones, who they claimed had confessed. Hammonds gave a statement, saying he saw Jones leave the apartment with a rifle and return after he heard some gunshots. In 1997, a retired police officer, Cleveland Smith, came forward and said the officer that arrested Jones had bragged that he beat Jones after his arrest. Smith, who described the officer as an \\\"enforcer\\\" testified that he once watched him get a confession from a suspect through torture. Smith claimed that he waited so long to come forward with this evidence because he wanted to secure his pension. More than a dozen people had implicated another man as the killer saying they either saw him carrying a rifle as he ran from the crime scene or heard him brag he had shot the officer. Even Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw wrote that Jones case had become \\\"a horse of a different color\\\". Newly discovered evidence, Shaw wrote, \\\"casts serious doubt on Jones guilt.\\\" Shaw and one other judge voted to grant Jones a new trial. However, a five-judge majority ruled against him. Jones was executed by electric chair on March 24, 1998. These are just a few innocent people executed. Since 1976 there have been 1292 people executed...How many were innocent nobody will ever know. If one INNOCENT person is executed capital punishment is flawed and has to be abolished. This is literally life and death. \\\"I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings\\\" --Marquis de Lafayette\",\n \"The death penalty\\nThe death penalty is now a painless injection that does not cause pain to the person be executed. It is a way to show criminals what will come of their cruel actions. Never being able to see you family again is a wake up call to those who are given the penalty. The last thing they know is being strapped to a chair, and then painlessly dying.\",\n \"This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished\\nThank you for agreeing to this debate. So here I go. First, I would like to state that the death penalty is an act of murder. It is the act of taking someone's life away forcefully, which is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. The crime of murder (or other serious crimes such as kidnapping) carries our harshest of sentences such is our disdain for the crime. However, the death penalty is nothing more nothing less than \\\"legal\\\" murder carried out in a cruel and calculated manner by the state. Secondly, the death penalty cannot be reversed once carried out, which raises a number of issues. These serious flaw issues have again recently been highlighted in a report by the American Law Institute. Judges and juries do make mistakes. No legal system in this world can boast of cent percent discipline when it comes to crime investigation. There are chances that lack of proper investigations may land a wrong person in the conviction box, and even send him to gallows. One also has to understand that execution of an individual cannot be rectified if the person was found to be innocent after the execution. On the other hand, a person serving a life term can at least be set free once his innocence has been proved. There are indeed such cases where the \\\"criminal\\\" is innocent. Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the US, due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. Imagine what would have happened if their lawyers did not present the evidence in time. Sometimes innocent people cannot be saved. I quote from David Dow, Texas death penalty lawyer, author of \\\"Autobiography of an Execution\\\". He said: \\\"Learn about the Michael Richard case. He was mentally disabled. On the morning of his execution, in 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of lethal injection. Lawyers in my office scrambled to file a petition for Richard raising the issue, but he was executed because we did not finish by the time the court closed at 5. The court would not stay open late for us. I think if we had been able to get the petition filed, he would still be alive today.\\\" If the death penalty did not exist, Michael Richard, an innocent man, would have been alive. Justice Harry Blackmun was 85 years old and near the end of his tenure on the Supreme Court when he declared in 1994 that he could no longer support the imposition of the death penalty. \\\"The problem,\\\" he said, \\\"is that the inevitability of factual, legal and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.\\\" I quote from Anthony Graves, a man who was exonerated from Texas' death row in 2010: \\\"I know how easy it was for them to take my freedom and set out to kill me. I feel that if it was that easy, I\\\"m sure there have been many mistakes in the past, that many men and women on death row are innocent. It\\\"s not an infallible system. Anyone can be sentenced to death for a crime they didn\\\"t commit. That alone is a reason that the death penalty should be abolished.\\\" He says that it is highly possible that an innocent man could be put to death for a crime he did not commit. That is not only injustice, but also cannot be reversed.. There is no way to give a person back his/her life. Now, you might say I only quoted from the people who would gain from abolishing the death penalty. Let me quote Bob Curley, who lost his son to murder: \\\"When something like this (the murder of a loved one) happens, you feel violated, and your sense of what\\\"s right and what\\\"s wrong gets thrown out the window for a time. It\\\"s not something that you get over, and there\\\"s no closure. I have channeled my anger in a positive way by working to prevent child sexual abuse, and the death penalty convictions of innocent people.\\\" Even he, a person who lost his son to murder, worked to prevent death penalty convictions of innocent people. Those people would most likely have been charged with crimes such as murder. Influenced by his loss, he probably would have stood on the opposite side, but did not. You cannot say family of victims of murder like the death penalty. Some of them say the bloodshed is not a way to honour their beloved's life. (Please see: http://mvfhr.org...) Thirdly, the death penalty is unfair. It is not fair of the state to murder the murderer when it does not rape the rapist or burn the house of the arsonist. If death penalty is legalized on the grounds of tit-for-tat concept of justice, then all other crimes should be punished accordingly. Those in favor of capital punishment also ask why the taxpayers should have to take the burden of housing a convict, and providing him with the necessities of life. Instead, executing him will save a decent amount of money, which can be channelized towards the development of the nation. However, I would like to point out, as I mentioned above, what if the person was innocent? Can money give him back his life? I do not think so. Also, the cost of death penalty is actually higher than the cost of letting a criminal live. Most of us fail to realize that executing a death sentence does not save a lot of money. This is because, the cost incurred prior to and during the trial, involves an endless stream of appeals, legal wrangling, etc. For such trials, special motions and extra time for jury selection are required. Investigation charges also rise exorbitantly, especially by the prosecution. Lawyers and judges need to be paid, as well as simple things such as electricity. Thus, a lot of money is used during the process. Some also say that the death penalty stops people from killing. I think otherwise. Most murders are done in the heat of passion, wherein a person fails to think rationally, so to think the fear of death penalty will reduce homicides is unreasonable. If the government wants to send a message that killing is wrong, how can it convey the same by killing a person? Killing to convince people that killing is wrong, doesn't sound right, does it? \\\"An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind\\\", is what Mahatma Gandhi said. Death as punishment for death is not the solution. A murderer who has mercilessly killed people once, may escape from prison and end up killing others. Life imprisonment means chances of parole, which gives the criminal a chance to get back at those who testified against him. He can also take revenge from the victim's family. This leaves the victim's family living a life of fear all the time. Death penalty ensures the murderer can commit no more crimes in the future. That, however, does not mean we must keep the death penalty. Couldn't life without parole be considered? That can also effectively stop the criminal from taking revenge or murdering again. Is the death penalty really that effective? The time frame between the sentencing of convict and his actual execution is quite lengthy - at times spanning a decade or even more. By the time this execution is carried out, only a few people (mostly the victim's and criminal's family members) keep a track of the trial. As time elapses the deterrence effect of sentencing a person to death starts decreasing. Even those in support of death penalty agree with this fact, and argue that the legal fraternity should speed up such trials and execute the convict at the earliest so that the deterrence effect as a consequence of death penalty is maximum. But then, speedy trials would again mean more chances of an innocent person being sent to the gallows, and that is something which we can't afford to do. I look forward to hearing your arguments and rebuttals!\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["The Death Penalty should be kept and enforced. I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadness in another, one eye for another. That is a way of the past that we should abolish. The death penalty doesn't always JUST kill criminals. Innocent people are tried for crimes and may be convicted even if they didn't commit said crime. Then they are put to death. Now, not all people who are sentenced the death penalty are innocent, many are guilty of said crimes, but what crimes here are appropriate? You want statistics, here are mine: 7 countries have the death penalty for being gay (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc...) Countries have the death penalty for rape, robbery, drug possession or trafficking, adultery, treason, etc... How about some of the inhumane ways it is carried out: Hanging Firing Squad Beheading Public Stoning to death This is the barbaric truth about what the death punishment is. And the fact is it shouldn't be allowed. No human should be subject to this. Life is valuable and should not be left to the hands of the judicial system to decide. My final argument is that mistakes are made. Innocent people are killed, and was it really worth it? All of those lives ended because you couldn't just settle for locking them up for life? http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org... http://www.youtube.com...","There should be death penalty for murderers. Lately I have seen a lot of people thinking that the death penalty is a good idea for murders. I am opposed to this. I ask that round one is accepting and maybe a starting line or two. Please can you cite any used sources (or give credit to them at the end of your argument), if any are used, besides to check up on prior knowledge. Thanks, and good luck.","Should their be a death penalty not always. but often yes. people do not deserve to die for their wrong doings. i do feel as there are more options.","Capital punishment to criminals should be banned. From my point of view Death Penalty should be accepted. Humanity already have evidence of the deterrent effect caused by the death penalty. For instance, according to 'Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data' by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, Emory University and Joanna M. Shepherd, Clemson University and Emory University. Statistics results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders\"with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. Prisons waste tons of money by keeping these people who were sentenced to live in prisons for the entire life! They don't work, they don't bring any benefit to the society, but differently from starving people, they still are being given a shelter, food and even being looked after. Death penalty would reduce the spendings that can be used for other, more beneficial purposes.","the death penalty is a reasonable punishment Well, its hard not to mention religion on this issue, especially between two believers. My secular basis is this: Death is not a proper punishment for murder because, essentially, it is a waste of resources. So long as it is possible to reform people and put them to useful and productive work, we should attempt to do so. Dont kill them, and dont lock them away for life. I believe all criminals should work off their debt, doing actual work for the betterment of the community and the nation.","The death penalty is fair and should still stand. it may be less pain full but we are killing the same as they did do two wrongs make a right .... no they don't.","Execution should be removed To your first argument: I can't really tell what point it is you are trying to make, but if an individual has committed acts so heinous that the population of an entire country cannot be impartial towards him, then the death penalty should be a pretty easy decision to arrive to. Actually, this can be a subject of this argument. The money that would otherwise go to keeping a murderer alive could instead be funneled to public education or national defense. Otherwise the state would be paying to keep a murderer alive for the rest of his natural life while he does nothing with it, simply spending the rest of his life in a cell until he eventually dies anyway. You argue that \"Prisons were made because people who commits crimes should captured and placed in a place IN WHICH THEY CAN THINK ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS.\" Once again I repeat, and I can't emphasize this enough: Individuals who willfully plan take the life of another are highly unlikely to regret their decision, as they took time to think over their future actions before they carried them out. They have NO remorse. You can't make them see the wrong of their ways. Therefore imprisoning them and waiting for them to die on their own is a waste of time. I believe execution should be kept in place for people whose actions are beyond redemption and whose guilt is provable without a doubt.","Death penalty Death penalty can/should inflict pain on murderers; due desert","There should be death penalty for murderers. I believe the death penalty is a cruel and inhumane decision and will result in more, not less, murders and murderers including the government. I am not saying we should let these killers roam free but that we should give them a punishment that is reversible if the presumed killer is the wrong person such as a lifetime sentence and community service. Remember, if a person is framed or wrongly accused we have, therefore, killed an innocent life we can not get back. If we are giving such a punishment as a lifetime sentence the wrong accused can walk out and get their life back, pretty much, unharmed. I would like to thank the opponent although I was hoping to see an argument from you. Hopefully I might see on in this final round. Thank you to all those reading this and whom are going to vote and, please, if I have convinced you the death penalty is wrong vote con!!!","The death penalty is fair and should still stand. I do not agree what so ever . prison is a different type of punishment yes people should have a punishment for there wrong doings but there are better ways to approach it rather than killing when we use lethal injection we are sinning the same as the person committing the crime I am not saying they should be let go with no punishment they should have to pay for what they have done but as I have said before two wrongs DON'T make a Wright.","Should their be a death penalty The death penalty is used on people who COMMIT murder","the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions Yes the taxpayer money is more important than the life of a murderer, Yes. That is why he should be on the death row, As he does not DESERVE to keep on living in society. Yes but that's just the court case, Not all the decades the murderer spends in jail.","The Death Penalty No problem. First of all I'll say while I do agree with the death penalty I think it should be very hard to be sentenced to. So imagine this. It is a summer night and your sleeping in bed with your wife and daughters downstairs. Someone breaks in and before you can do anything about it he has brutally slaughtered your wife and daughters. How could this man possibly just go to prison. He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty. An eye for eye, right? I do realize many arguments against the death penalty are that what if an innocent was sentenced with a death penalty. While this is possible it is very rare. An innocent man has a better chance of being killed by a falling meteor. The death penalty offers more reward than risk. Also another thought is when someone doesn't get the death penalty there is a decent chance he will be out on the streets before he dies. Very few people serve a full life penalty. Would you really want to take a chance of this man being back on the streets someday?","Should their be a death penalty No their should not. Their are many people out there who have done very little crimes like speeding or parked in a wrong spot, does that mean they deserve a death penalty. They are still nice people, they should not be punished that harshily. Many celebrities today have done way worse things than that like drug possesion, gun possession, or attempted suicide, those crimes should lead those people to death penalty so no I dont believe in a death penalty","Death Penalty I'll accept the challenge on the death penalty. I will now state why I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be brought back. The death penalty could be used to kill people who haven't committed the crime. There has been some cases where they kill the man, then later come to find that he never committed the crime. In my opinion this solution is just far too permanent for something that may not be 100% sure.","The death penalty should be abolished I extend my arguments intact to the final round. I conclude that the death penalty should not be abolished.","there should not be a death penelty I do agree with my opponent about Theodore Frank's case. In some cases a death penalty should be considered. i agree with myself and my opponent. though i meant killing as in murder. maybe some murderers thought \"if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers.\"","death penalty should be abolish I think that death penalty is too cruel. Inspite of the fact that someone killed somebody it does not matter that our society have rights to kill too, because it means that we also murders.Also we can have mistake killing unguilty person.","is the death penalty good I believe that the death penalty is wrong and should not be legal i will allow my opponent to make the first argument","Debater's Choice The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.","Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized. Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized. Please accept this debate only if you will take it seriously. I wish to enjoy a good-hearted and intellectual discussion in regards to this topics. First, however, allow me to lay out some framework as to how the debate will operate. :)","The death penalty should be unconstitutional I believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and that it should be made illegal in the United States. That pretty much sums it up","Death Penalty I absolutely think the death penalty is not okay and never will be okay no matter what somebody does.","Death Penalty I think the Death Penalty should not be used** I accept. Good Luck!","States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty In keeping with his rules: I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of the plea of the defendant. (I did correct the typo in \"regardless\", which I hope Pro does not fault; which is not to give him crap about the typo, because I'm sure I'll make my own) Though this is an administrative round, I would also like to note that Pro has conceded in the comments that the death penalty is valid in principle, so that this debate will not hinge on that point.","the death penalty should stay and not be abolished The death penalty should stay because the murderers should be deterred to themselves because they are being such jackasses to the whole world.","The Federal U.S. Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment I believe that the U.S. Government should not declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space. Each prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system.","Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions quite simply the death penalty should be abolished.","Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed First debate, very excited! OK here I go: Everyone has the right to live, no ones life should be ended because someone decided that they should. The saying two wrongs don't make a right goes a very long way when it comes to topics like this. Human life is so valuable, that even murderers shouldn't be deprived of their life, even if they have killed someone. The death penalty is something that you can't take back, it is irreversible! Imagine killing someone and later on finding out that they are innocent. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, was found innocent after his 2004 execution. Lastly, using the death penalty doesn't deter criminals, evidence says it does the complete opposite! Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasn't alone.","The Death Penalty I think the death penalty should remain in use. Many criminals when released from prison will be likely to commit a crime again. If you are convicted for murder, rape, genocide, treason, or a pedophile you should get the death penalty. You have already shown that you are not a law abiding citizen and there should be no reason to give you another chance to live again and possibly commit the same act. People who commit crimes such as rape or murder are usually not one time offenders. Also, just because some people believe that the death penalty is morally wrong does not mean everyone believes it is wrong. Why put someone away from life when there is a possibility of parole or someone can escape? Putting someone away from life makes our jails more crowded. With the right changes to the way the death penalty works, it can be helpful and useful to keep people who are sick and cannot be helped off of the streets.","Death Penalty should be allowed How unfortunate, my opponent has forfeited. Well, I might as well make an argument anyway.1. CostsThe Death Penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Therefore, we should not use it.2. Innocent PeopleIf you throw an innocent person in jail, you can yank them out again if you can show their innocence. You can't bring back someone from the dead.While these arguments are poor of quality, they are still more than what my opponent provided.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...","Death Penalty I believe the death penalty should not be a punishment because I believe it's unnecessary because I believe a life sentence is already a good enough punishment. Also, an innocent person who is believed to have committed murder could receive the death penalty even though they did not commit murder. I also believe that the death penalty might teach people that if somebody murders a loved one of theirs then they should murder them, and this will increase the amount of people committing murder.","death penalty I think that the death penalty shall not be abolished because if you raped, killed, or did so much harm to somebody else, then you deserve to not live on this Earth anymore. If somebody killed your mom or best friend, would you want them dead? I would.","Death pentaly The death penalty should be enforced in the U. S. because it is neither cruel nor unusual. Therefore, it is a valid punishment. It is not unusual because it has always been done throughout history. From . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... : \"The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B. C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. \" It is not cruel because it is just retribution for inhumane crimes. The 8th Ammendment to the constitution only states: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \" . http://www.usconstitution.net... This is the only restriction on punishment in the U. S. Therefore, there is no reason to ban the death penalty.","Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed 1. Worse sentence\"Few convicted murderers sentenced to life in prison declare years later that they wish they had been sentenced instead to death and executed. Few if any death row prisoners refuse clemency if it is offered to them.\" [1]. They fear death more than life in prision. 2. Mistakes\"there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976\" [2]. There are some doubt in cases like in Willingham's case, but he was not aquitted. The death penalty deters criminals meaning it saves lives. When we fail to execute a murderer we are effectively valuing the murder's life higher than that of the person who might spare though the deterrent effect of their execution. If even one innocent person is saved through the deterrent effect of executing a murder, who has given up their right to life when they take a life, the execution of that murderer is justified.Sources[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...","Bring back the Death Penalty I believe the UK government should bring back the death penalty for murder and pedophiles, these people take life so should lose their own, its an eye for an eye","The U.S Federal Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment If taking a life that has taken many other's lives is inhumane and unjust, than our own military using deadly force would be inhumane for the sake of protecting our own great country and innocent people. If you kill by the sword you should die by the sword.","Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions yeah, that just kinda ended this","The death penaltys cruel and unusual punishment In this debate I will be arguing that the death penalty classifies as cruel and unusual punishment. I also will argue that it bypasses rehabilitation as a whole. It should be outlawed. If the ICJ doesn't use it on war criminals how could it be argued that it should be used on people who have killed two people. Do not start if you will not finish, and please respond in a reasonable amount of time. Thanks and good luck","Death penalty should be allowed Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic.","Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes The United States should have death penalty for capital offenses, which include first-degree murder and treason. Don't hesitate to state your opinions but be respectful.","Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes Murder and treason are by all means unacceptable however violence is not the solution and never should be. If murder is unacceptable and unforgivable than taking the life of another human in the name of a death penalty is just as unacceptable. Murder is evil no matter who it is that murders or the purpose behind it. The purpose of punishment is to teach and promote good values. By choosing murder as an answer to eradicating inhumane acts such as murder and treason, we would be contradicting the very morals and values we call humanity. An eye for eye will make the whole world blind~ Mahatma Ghandi","Should the Death Penalty be Reinstated in the United States Although the death penalty has been banned in most states, I believe that there are boundaries to a crime, and if crossed, there should be a more severe punishment then life in prison. Act all sweet and nice and they'll have time off for good behavior. If you live long enough, you'll walk among us again. I don't want that. Do you?","The death penalty should be illegal. Yes, you are absolutely right. There is no practicality in spending so much money to keep murderers in prisons. However, is money really something that can have as much value as a life? We cannot just say that they do not deserve life. Especially because it costs money. How can we restrict someone from living? The death penaly is a murder against a human. Is there any excuse that would really make a murder justified?","Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty) Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!","Death penalty I believe that the death penalty should be legal in every state. First, people that are crazy enough to commit murder shouldn't be in jail or on the streets. The criminal serving in jail will be their for life. Do you really want taxpayer's money going towards keeping some scum bag alive. I am completely for the death penalty. Good luck to you.","the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions The death penalty should be completely abolished. It is wrong to kill people. If we want to punish someone for killing someone else, Is it not hypocritical for us to kill them? Two wrongs do not make a right.","Should the Death Penalty be banned The death penalty should be banned as killing people for committing crimes makes us just as bad as the. As well as that banning it produces an economic benefit as it costs more money to have a death penalty trial and execution than it does to keep prisoners in prison for over 70 years.","Should we abolish death penalty I myself will be arguing that the death penalty should not be abolished and should be continued, First round is for acceptance.","The death penalty should be allowed The death penalty is not \"wrong\". It is just.","death penalty Do you think that innocent people or even criminals deserve to be sentenced to the Death Penalty ? I personally think that taking another persons' life is extremely despairing. I honestly think the Death Penalty should be outlawed.","The death penalty should be banned in the United States. I accept. :) Thank you, Mikal, for letting me have this.","death penalty Hi. I'm assuming this is just an acceptance round. I support the death penalty's existence for extreme crimes. Good luck con.","The United States should abolish the Death Penalty. Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.","The death penalty should remain in place I believe that the death penalty should remain in place and I'd like to do a short debate about this.","The death penalty should be abolished I accept your challenge. I would love to take the other side of the argument as I do consider the death penalty should be given for the guilty. Nonetheless, I love debating, so I shall be defending that the death penalty is not justifiable. Looking forward going against you.","the death penalty should stay and not be abolished The death penalty should stay because the murderers have killed innocent lives and they should go to the death penalty for life and they never can get out again and then kill.","Capital punishment as a form of justice I am putting forward an open debate relating to capital punishment. I believe that capital punishment should be considered as a form of justice and therefore, should be allowed.","the death penalty is a reasonable punishment I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the case of murder because in my opinion the scum of the earth need to be abolished. America needs to set an example for criminals that we will not tolerate evil and unjustifiable crimes","The death penalty should be allowed What you think is not relevant. You have done nothing to show the death penalty is wrong or evil. And the fact is that those in prison have shorter lifespans than those not in prison, which means even your prison sentence is a death sentence, but you prefer the slow and torturous method and me the quick and easy method. You also want to make the criminal suffer. That is evil. I just want justice. I win.","The death penalty should be illegal It would only be moral to stop those who deserve the death penalty by giving them the death penalty. Why would we let a murderer go free?","The death penalty is fair and should still stand. This i my challenge to Alyssa. It is her 1st debate so it will be set with 4000 Characters. I will be brief on my first argument . I believe that the death penalty should still stand in the United States because it is only fair that the murders get their punishment. I believe in lethal ejection. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...","The Death Penalty should be banned the death penalty has put many criminals out of commision. The death penalty should stay it's not a bad thing it's the people. I do agree with part of your argument as they shouldn't execute innocent people. If the jury are not completely sure they did it should have an extra year to find evidence instead of completely getting rid of the death penalty.","The death Penalty should still stand. I think that the Death Penalty should stay. I do not believe that it is right to let a murderer stay in prison living off of tax dollars for the rest of his life. I believe that the penalty should only be used on people they have hard evidence on so they can avoid executing the wrong person. If the death penalty stayed, there would be less crimes in and outside of jail. Criminals would be afraid to kill someone fearing for their lives. Does anyone object?","The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished I believe that the death penalty should be abolished. Solitary confinement is a much better way to deal with criminals who are a threat to everyone around them.","Death penalty should be allowed The criminal justice system, in general, needs desperately to be rethought, it would be more accurately named the \"Social Revenge System\". The death penalty is currently applied inappropriately, however, it could still have a place.","The Death Penalty Should be Illegal I think the death penalty should be illegal. I am very interested in hearing my opponent's argument.","Death penalty I think death penalty should be approved in every single prision that exists in the world. Criminals need to pay for what they did, and also they need to be punished, because the crime they are acused of is something that is very serious.","Death Penalty The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.","The Death Penalty should be illegal I believe the death penalty is acceptable. I believe this based on 3 major reasons. 1. If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own? 2. Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family. 3. Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel. Best of luck. Lets have a good debate.","Death Penalty Do you think that the Death penalty should be legal everywhere?","Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed There is a better way to help the families of murder victims. Families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance. Capital Punishment also goes against almost every religion. Although isolated passages of the Bible have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. Mentally ill people have also been executed. Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury. Some have been forcibly medicated in order to make them competent to be executed.","Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned Yes. But other people might think that since people of higher position are killing people, they might think it's okay.","The Death Penalty Should be Abolished I believe the death penalty shouldn't go anywhere. If a person has committed a capital crime such as murder, Treason, Or crimes against humanity, They don't deserve to live. It costs the government less money to give someone the capital punishment than to give them life in prison. It arguably deters crime, Since most criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if it meant death.","Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned The Death Penalty Should Be Banned Because Most People Who Kills People Most Have Permit For a Pistol.","Death Penalty The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.","Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed It is important to note they the state does not execute people for the benefit of the family. However, I don't see how the extended process prior to the executions are agonizing since they are serving the rest of their life in prison until execution, and if there was no execution then they would just stay in prison. Christianity is accepting of capital punishment most notably mentioned in Genesis 9:6 [1]. Even if they are mentally ill they still committed a capital crime such as murder or treason and should be punished. Further, people can plead insanity, and also it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded [2]. The death penalty should be allowed because it does save lives, it gives proper retribution, and it serves justice. Sources [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://www.oyez.org...","Death penalty should be allowed So my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I would like to continue with my argument right away. There can always be wrong convictions. According to statistics, in Illinois, there are about 20 wrong convictions a year. Would we really want to allow death penalty and allow innocent deaths? There is a Korean movie called \"Miracle in Cell no.7\" It is about a man who has a mental disability and is wrongly convicted of raping and murder. At the end, he gets executed because he wasn\"t able to tell the truth about his innocence. Do we really want innocent deaths? By allowing death penalty, we are allowing all the people who are wrongly convicted of crimes to die an innocent death? Should that be justified? The obvious answer is a no. Because I strongly oppose to the justification of innocent executions, I would like to prevent the allowing of death penalty.","Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned But in certain cases the death penalty will be a blessing to them or be what they deserve if they did something really bad.","Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned death penalty should not be banned because there are people who do crime and they deserve to get penalty.","Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed If someone commits a murder, then yes, they do deserve to be punished. But think of it this way, death it the easy way out. Would you rather have a life sentence in prison, or die? What about the family of the victim? Many people assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty to be imposed, but it isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral ground. Then there is the worst thing about the death penalty: Errors The system can make tragic mistakes. There have been many unfortunate people that have been killed, and later on been proved innocent. We'll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.","Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia The Death Penalty should be allowed anywhere, where justice is due to those who have committed heinous crimes, mainly Murder in the First Degree, IE with a pre-meditated intention. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... But I don't see why you think Australia should not get the Death penalty, compared to any other country in the world. The BOP is on my opponent, so I will assume the debate will begin in R2. Good luck.","The Death Penalty should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment and should be banished i believe no one shall be deserving of Death, it is Gods decision, The death penalty should be banished forever in every city and every state.","Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes. In the case of capital murder and life destroying sexual crimes, the death penalty should be allowed, as it is a powerful deterrent and, if the criminal takes it upon themselves to take control of the life of another and ruin it/ take it, the state/federal government should reserve the power to do so as well.","Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned But its not right for the government and others to be able to put people to death and then it not be okay for normal people to do it.","the death penalty should be allowed I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.","Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes","Death penalty Do you think the death penalty should be legal even now","Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes I agree; Canada should allow the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes.","The Death Penalty In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?","Debater's Choice Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty,","should death penitently stay The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.","The death penalty should be allowed The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.","Death Penalty should be allowed I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.","death penalty should the death penalty be allowed?"],"string":"[\n \"The Death Penalty should be kept and enforced. I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadness in another, one eye for another. That is a way of the past that we should abolish. The death penalty doesn't always JUST kill criminals. Innocent people are tried for crimes and may be convicted even if they didn't commit said crime. Then they are put to death. Now, not all people who are sentenced the death penalty are innocent, many are guilty of said crimes, but what crimes here are appropriate? You want statistics, here are mine: 7 countries have the death penalty for being gay (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc...) Countries have the death penalty for rape, robbery, drug possession or trafficking, adultery, treason, etc... How about some of the inhumane ways it is carried out: Hanging Firing Squad Beheading Public Stoning to death This is the barbaric truth about what the death punishment is. And the fact is it shouldn't be allowed. No human should be subject to this. Life is valuable and should not be left to the hands of the judicial system to decide. My final argument is that mistakes are made. Innocent people are killed, and was it really worth it? All of those lives ended because you couldn't just settle for locking them up for life? http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org... http://www.youtube.com...\",\n \"There should be death penalty for murderers. Lately I have seen a lot of people thinking that the death penalty is a good idea for murders. I am opposed to this. I ask that round one is accepting and maybe a starting line or two. Please can you cite any used sources (or give credit to them at the end of your argument), if any are used, besides to check up on prior knowledge. Thanks, and good luck.\",\n \"Should their be a death penalty not always. but often yes. people do not deserve to die for their wrong doings. i do feel as there are more options.\",\n \"Capital punishment to criminals should be banned. From my point of view Death Penalty should be accepted. Humanity already have evidence of the deterrent effect caused by the death penalty. For instance, according to 'Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data' by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, Emory University and Joanna M. Shepherd, Clemson University and Emory University. Statistics results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders\\\"with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. Prisons waste tons of money by keeping these people who were sentenced to live in prisons for the entire life! They don't work, they don't bring any benefit to the society, but differently from starving people, they still are being given a shelter, food and even being looked after. Death penalty would reduce the spendings that can be used for other, more beneficial purposes.\",\n \"the death penalty is a reasonable punishment Well, its hard not to mention religion on this issue, especially between two believers. My secular basis is this: Death is not a proper punishment for murder because, essentially, it is a waste of resources. So long as it is possible to reform people and put them to useful and productive work, we should attempt to do so. Dont kill them, and dont lock them away for life. I believe all criminals should work off their debt, doing actual work for the betterment of the community and the nation.\",\n \"The death penalty is fair and should still stand. it may be less pain full but we are killing the same as they did do two wrongs make a right .... no they don't.\",\n \"Execution should be removed To your first argument: I can't really tell what point it is you are trying to make, but if an individual has committed acts so heinous that the population of an entire country cannot be impartial towards him, then the death penalty should be a pretty easy decision to arrive to. Actually, this can be a subject of this argument. The money that would otherwise go to keeping a murderer alive could instead be funneled to public education or national defense. Otherwise the state would be paying to keep a murderer alive for the rest of his natural life while he does nothing with it, simply spending the rest of his life in a cell until he eventually dies anyway. You argue that \\\"Prisons were made because people who commits crimes should captured and placed in a place IN WHICH THEY CAN THINK ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS.\\\" Once again I repeat, and I can't emphasize this enough: Individuals who willfully plan take the life of another are highly unlikely to regret their decision, as they took time to think over their future actions before they carried them out. They have NO remorse. You can't make them see the wrong of their ways. Therefore imprisoning them and waiting for them to die on their own is a waste of time. I believe execution should be kept in place for people whose actions are beyond redemption and whose guilt is provable without a doubt.\",\n \"Death penalty Death penalty can/should inflict pain on murderers; due desert\",\n \"There should be death penalty for murderers. I believe the death penalty is a cruel and inhumane decision and will result in more, not less, murders and murderers including the government. I am not saying we should let these killers roam free but that we should give them a punishment that is reversible if the presumed killer is the wrong person such as a lifetime sentence and community service. Remember, if a person is framed or wrongly accused we have, therefore, killed an innocent life we can not get back. If we are giving such a punishment as a lifetime sentence the wrong accused can walk out and get their life back, pretty much, unharmed. I would like to thank the opponent although I was hoping to see an argument from you. Hopefully I might see on in this final round. Thank you to all those reading this and whom are going to vote and, please, if I have convinced you the death penalty is wrong vote con!!!\",\n \"The death penalty is fair and should still stand. I do not agree what so ever . prison is a different type of punishment yes people should have a punishment for there wrong doings but there are better ways to approach it rather than killing when we use lethal injection we are sinning the same as the person committing the crime I am not saying they should be let go with no punishment they should have to pay for what they have done but as I have said before two wrongs DON'T make a Wright.\",\n \"Should their be a death penalty The death penalty is used on people who COMMIT murder\",\n \"the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions Yes the taxpayer money is more important than the life of a murderer, Yes. That is why he should be on the death row, As he does not DESERVE to keep on living in society. Yes but that's just the court case, Not all the decades the murderer spends in jail.\",\n \"The Death Penalty No problem. First of all I'll say while I do agree with the death penalty I think it should be very hard to be sentenced to. So imagine this. It is a summer night and your sleeping in bed with your wife and daughters downstairs. Someone breaks in and before you can do anything about it he has brutally slaughtered your wife and daughters. How could this man possibly just go to prison. He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty. An eye for eye, right? I do realize many arguments against the death penalty are that what if an innocent was sentenced with a death penalty. While this is possible it is very rare. An innocent man has a better chance of being killed by a falling meteor. The death penalty offers more reward than risk. Also another thought is when someone doesn't get the death penalty there is a decent chance he will be out on the streets before he dies. Very few people serve a full life penalty. Would you really want to take a chance of this man being back on the streets someday?\",\n \"Should their be a death penalty No their should not. Their are many people out there who have done very little crimes like speeding or parked in a wrong spot, does that mean they deserve a death penalty. They are still nice people, they should not be punished that harshily. Many celebrities today have done way worse things than that like drug possesion, gun possession, or attempted suicide, those crimes should lead those people to death penalty so no I dont believe in a death penalty\",\n \"Death Penalty I'll accept the challenge on the death penalty. I will now state why I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be brought back. The death penalty could be used to kill people who haven't committed the crime. There has been some cases where they kill the man, then later come to find that he never committed the crime. In my opinion this solution is just far too permanent for something that may not be 100% sure.\",\n \"The death penalty should be abolished I extend my arguments intact to the final round. I conclude that the death penalty should not be abolished.\",\n \"there should not be a death penelty I do agree with my opponent about Theodore Frank's case. In some cases a death penalty should be considered. i agree with myself and my opponent. though i meant killing as in murder. maybe some murderers thought \\\"if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers.\\\"\",\n \"death penalty should be abolish I think that death penalty is too cruel. Inspite of the fact that someone killed somebody it does not matter that our society have rights to kill too, because it means that we also murders.Also we can have mistake killing unguilty person.\",\n \"is the death penalty good I believe that the death penalty is wrong and should not be legal i will allow my opponent to make the first argument\",\n \"Debater's Choice The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.\",\n \"Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized. Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized. Please accept this debate only if you will take it seriously. I wish to enjoy a good-hearted and intellectual discussion in regards to this topics. First, however, allow me to lay out some framework as to how the debate will operate. :)\",\n \"The death penalty should be unconstitutional I believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and that it should be made illegal in the United States. That pretty much sums it up\",\n \"Death Penalty I absolutely think the death penalty is not okay and never will be okay no matter what somebody does.\",\n \"Death Penalty I think the Death Penalty should not be used** I accept. Good Luck!\",\n \"States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty In keeping with his rules: I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of the plea of the defendant. (I did correct the typo in \\\"regardless\\\", which I hope Pro does not fault; which is not to give him crap about the typo, because I'm sure I'll make my own) Though this is an administrative round, I would also like to note that Pro has conceded in the comments that the death penalty is valid in principle, so that this debate will not hinge on that point.\",\n \"the death penalty should stay and not be abolished The death penalty should stay because the murderers should be deterred to themselves because they are being such jackasses to the whole world.\",\n \"The Federal U.S. Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment I believe that the U.S. Government should not declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space. Each prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system.\",\n \"Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions quite simply the death penalty should be abolished.\",\n \"Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed First debate, very excited! OK here I go: Everyone has the right to live, no ones life should be ended because someone decided that they should. The saying two wrongs don't make a right goes a very long way when it comes to topics like this. Human life is so valuable, that even murderers shouldn't be deprived of their life, even if they have killed someone. The death penalty is something that you can't take back, it is irreversible! Imagine killing someone and later on finding out that they are innocent. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, was found innocent after his 2004 execution. Lastly, using the death penalty doesn't deter criminals, evidence says it does the complete opposite! Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasn't alone.\",\n \"The Death Penalty I think the death penalty should remain in use. Many criminals when released from prison will be likely to commit a crime again. If you are convicted for murder, rape, genocide, treason, or a pedophile you should get the death penalty. You have already shown that you are not a law abiding citizen and there should be no reason to give you another chance to live again and possibly commit the same act. People who commit crimes such as rape or murder are usually not one time offenders. Also, just because some people believe that the death penalty is morally wrong does not mean everyone believes it is wrong. Why put someone away from life when there is a possibility of parole or someone can escape? Putting someone away from life makes our jails more crowded. With the right changes to the way the death penalty works, it can be helpful and useful to keep people who are sick and cannot be helped off of the streets.\",\n \"Death Penalty should be allowed How unfortunate, my opponent has forfeited. Well, I might as well make an argument anyway.1. CostsThe Death Penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Therefore, we should not use it.2. Innocent PeopleIf you throw an innocent person in jail, you can yank them out again if you can show their innocence. You can't bring back someone from the dead.While these arguments are poor of quality, they are still more than what my opponent provided.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Death Penalty I believe the death penalty should not be a punishment because I believe it's unnecessary because I believe a life sentence is already a good enough punishment. Also, an innocent person who is believed to have committed murder could receive the death penalty even though they did not commit murder. I also believe that the death penalty might teach people that if somebody murders a loved one of theirs then they should murder them, and this will increase the amount of people committing murder.\",\n \"death penalty I think that the death penalty shall not be abolished because if you raped, killed, or did so much harm to somebody else, then you deserve to not live on this Earth anymore. If somebody killed your mom or best friend, would you want them dead? I would.\",\n \"Death pentaly The death penalty should be enforced in the U. S. because it is neither cruel nor unusual. Therefore, it is a valid punishment. It is not unusual because it has always been done throughout history. From . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... : \\\"The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B. C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. \\\" It is not cruel because it is just retribution for inhumane crimes. The 8th Ammendment to the constitution only states: \\\"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \\\" . http://www.usconstitution.net... This is the only restriction on punishment in the U. S. Therefore, there is no reason to ban the death penalty.\",\n \"Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed 1. Worse sentence\\\"Few convicted murderers sentenced to life in prison declare years later that they wish they had been sentenced instead to death and executed. Few if any death row prisoners refuse clemency if it is offered to them.\\\" [1]. They fear death more than life in prision. 2. Mistakes\\\"there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976\\\" [2]. There are some doubt in cases like in Willingham's case, but he was not aquitted. The death penalty deters criminals meaning it saves lives. When we fail to execute a murderer we are effectively valuing the murder's life higher than that of the person who might spare though the deterrent effect of their execution. If even one innocent person is saved through the deterrent effect of executing a murder, who has given up their right to life when they take a life, the execution of that murderer is justified.Sources[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...\",\n \"Bring back the Death Penalty I believe the UK government should bring back the death penalty for murder and pedophiles, these people take life so should lose their own, its an eye for an eye\",\n \"The U.S Federal Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment If taking a life that has taken many other's lives is inhumane and unjust, than our own military using deadly force would be inhumane for the sake of protecting our own great country and innocent people. If you kill by the sword you should die by the sword.\",\n \"Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions yeah, that just kinda ended this\",\n \"The death penaltys cruel and unusual punishment In this debate I will be arguing that the death penalty classifies as cruel and unusual punishment. I also will argue that it bypasses rehabilitation as a whole. It should be outlawed. If the ICJ doesn't use it on war criminals how could it be argued that it should be used on people who have killed two people. Do not start if you will not finish, and please respond in a reasonable amount of time. Thanks and good luck\",\n \"Death penalty should be allowed Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic.\",\n \"Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes The United States should have death penalty for capital offenses, which include first-degree murder and treason. Don't hesitate to state your opinions but be respectful.\",\n \"Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes Murder and treason are by all means unacceptable however violence is not the solution and never should be. If murder is unacceptable and unforgivable than taking the life of another human in the name of a death penalty is just as unacceptable. Murder is evil no matter who it is that murders or the purpose behind it. The purpose of punishment is to teach and promote good values. By choosing murder as an answer to eradicating inhumane acts such as murder and treason, we would be contradicting the very morals and values we call humanity. An eye for eye will make the whole world blind~ Mahatma Ghandi\",\n \"Should the Death Penalty be Reinstated in the United States Although the death penalty has been banned in most states, I believe that there are boundaries to a crime, and if crossed, there should be a more severe punishment then life in prison. Act all sweet and nice and they'll have time off for good behavior. If you live long enough, you'll walk among us again. I don't want that. Do you?\",\n \"The death penalty should be illegal. Yes, you are absolutely right. There is no practicality in spending so much money to keep murderers in prisons. However, is money really something that can have as much value as a life? We cannot just say that they do not deserve life. Especially because it costs money. How can we restrict someone from living? The death penaly is a murder against a human. Is there any excuse that would really make a murder justified?\",\n \"Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty) Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!\",\n \"Death penalty I believe that the death penalty should be legal in every state. First, people that are crazy enough to commit murder shouldn't be in jail or on the streets. The criminal serving in jail will be their for life. Do you really want taxpayer's money going towards keeping some scum bag alive. I am completely for the death penalty. Good luck to you.\",\n \"the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions The death penalty should be completely abolished. It is wrong to kill people. If we want to punish someone for killing someone else, Is it not hypocritical for us to kill them? Two wrongs do not make a right.\",\n \"Should the Death Penalty be banned The death penalty should be banned as killing people for committing crimes makes us just as bad as the. As well as that banning it produces an economic benefit as it costs more money to have a death penalty trial and execution than it does to keep prisoners in prison for over 70 years.\",\n \"Should we abolish death penalty I myself will be arguing that the death penalty should not be abolished and should be continued, First round is for acceptance.\",\n \"The death penalty should be allowed The death penalty is not \\\"wrong\\\". It is just.\",\n \"death penalty Do you think that innocent people or even criminals deserve to be sentenced to the Death Penalty ? I personally think that taking another persons' life is extremely despairing. I honestly think the Death Penalty should be outlawed.\",\n \"The death penalty should be banned in the United States. I accept. :) Thank you, Mikal, for letting me have this.\",\n \"death penalty Hi. I'm assuming this is just an acceptance round. I support the death penalty's existence for extreme crimes. Good luck con.\",\n \"The United States should abolish the Death Penalty. Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.\",\n \"The death penalty should remain in place I believe that the death penalty should remain in place and I'd like to do a short debate about this.\",\n \"The death penalty should be abolished I accept your challenge. I would love to take the other side of the argument as I do consider the death penalty should be given for the guilty. Nonetheless, I love debating, so I shall be defending that the death penalty is not justifiable. Looking forward going against you.\",\n \"the death penalty should stay and not be abolished The death penalty should stay because the murderers have killed innocent lives and they should go to the death penalty for life and they never can get out again and then kill.\",\n \"Capital punishment as a form of justice I am putting forward an open debate relating to capital punishment. I believe that capital punishment should be considered as a form of justice and therefore, should be allowed.\",\n \"the death penalty is a reasonable punishment I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the case of murder because in my opinion the scum of the earth need to be abolished. America needs to set an example for criminals that we will not tolerate evil and unjustifiable crimes\",\n \"The death penalty should be allowed What you think is not relevant. You have done nothing to show the death penalty is wrong or evil. And the fact is that those in prison have shorter lifespans than those not in prison, which means even your prison sentence is a death sentence, but you prefer the slow and torturous method and me the quick and easy method. You also want to make the criminal suffer. That is evil. I just want justice. I win.\",\n \"The death penalty should be illegal It would only be moral to stop those who deserve the death penalty by giving them the death penalty. Why would we let a murderer go free?\",\n \"The death penalty is fair and should still stand. This i my challenge to Alyssa. It is her 1st debate so it will be set with 4000 Characters. I will be brief on my first argument . I believe that the death penalty should still stand in the United States because it is only fair that the murders get their punishment. I believe in lethal ejection. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be banned the death penalty has put many criminals out of commision. The death penalty should stay it's not a bad thing it's the people. I do agree with part of your argument as they shouldn't execute innocent people. If the jury are not completely sure they did it should have an extra year to find evidence instead of completely getting rid of the death penalty.\",\n \"The death Penalty should still stand. I think that the Death Penalty should stay. I do not believe that it is right to let a murderer stay in prison living off of tax dollars for the rest of his life. I believe that the penalty should only be used on people they have hard evidence on so they can avoid executing the wrong person. If the death penalty stayed, there would be less crimes in and outside of jail. Criminals would be afraid to kill someone fearing for their lives. Does anyone object?\",\n \"The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished I believe that the death penalty should be abolished. Solitary confinement is a much better way to deal with criminals who are a threat to everyone around them.\",\n \"Death penalty should be allowed The criminal justice system, in general, needs desperately to be rethought, it would be more accurately named the \\\"Social Revenge System\\\". The death penalty is currently applied inappropriately, however, it could still have a place.\",\n \"The Death Penalty Should be Illegal I think the death penalty should be illegal. I am very interested in hearing my opponent's argument.\",\n \"Death penalty I think death penalty should be approved in every single prision that exists in the world. Criminals need to pay for what they did, and also they need to be punished, because the crime they are acused of is something that is very serious.\",\n \"Death Penalty The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be illegal I believe the death penalty is acceptable. I believe this based on 3 major reasons. 1. If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own? 2. Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family. 3. Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel. Best of luck. Lets have a good debate.\",\n \"Death Penalty Do you think that the Death penalty should be legal everywhere?\",\n \"Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed There is a better way to help the families of murder victims. Families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance. Capital Punishment also goes against almost every religion. Although isolated passages of the Bible have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. Mentally ill people have also been executed. Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury. Some have been forcibly medicated in order to make them competent to be executed.\",\n \"Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned Yes. But other people might think that since people of higher position are killing people, they might think it's okay.\",\n \"The Death Penalty Should be Abolished I believe the death penalty shouldn't go anywhere. If a person has committed a capital crime such as murder, Treason, Or crimes against humanity, They don't deserve to live. It costs the government less money to give someone the capital punishment than to give them life in prison. It arguably deters crime, Since most criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if it meant death.\",\n \"Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned The Death Penalty Should Be Banned Because Most People Who Kills People Most Have Permit For a Pistol.\",\n \"Death Penalty The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.\",\n \"Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed It is important to note they the state does not execute people for the benefit of the family. However, I don't see how the extended process prior to the executions are agonizing since they are serving the rest of their life in prison until execution, and if there was no execution then they would just stay in prison. Christianity is accepting of capital punishment most notably mentioned in Genesis 9:6 [1]. Even if they are mentally ill they still committed a capital crime such as murder or treason and should be punished. Further, people can plead insanity, and also it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded [2]. The death penalty should be allowed because it does save lives, it gives proper retribution, and it serves justice. Sources [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://www.oyez.org...\",\n \"Death penalty should be allowed So my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I would like to continue with my argument right away. There can always be wrong convictions. According to statistics, in Illinois, there are about 20 wrong convictions a year. Would we really want to allow death penalty and allow innocent deaths? There is a Korean movie called \\\"Miracle in Cell no.7\\\" It is about a man who has a mental disability and is wrongly convicted of raping and murder. At the end, he gets executed because he wasn\\\"t able to tell the truth about his innocence. Do we really want innocent deaths? By allowing death penalty, we are allowing all the people who are wrongly convicted of crimes to die an innocent death? Should that be justified? The obvious answer is a no. Because I strongly oppose to the justification of innocent executions, I would like to prevent the allowing of death penalty.\",\n \"Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned But in certain cases the death penalty will be a blessing to them or be what they deserve if they did something really bad.\",\n \"Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned death penalty should not be banned because there are people who do crime and they deserve to get penalty.\",\n \"Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed If someone commits a murder, then yes, they do deserve to be punished. But think of it this way, death it the easy way out. Would you rather have a life sentence in prison, or die? What about the family of the victim? Many people assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty to be imposed, but it isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral ground. Then there is the worst thing about the death penalty: Errors The system can make tragic mistakes. There have been many unfortunate people that have been killed, and later on been proved innocent. We'll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.\",\n \"Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia The Death Penalty should be allowed anywhere, where justice is due to those who have committed heinous crimes, mainly Murder in the First Degree, IE with a pre-meditated intention. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... But I don't see why you think Australia should not get the Death penalty, compared to any other country in the world. The BOP is on my opponent, so I will assume the debate will begin in R2. Good luck.\",\n \"The Death Penalty should be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment and should be banished i believe no one shall be deserving of Death, it is Gods decision, The death penalty should be banished forever in every city and every state.\",\n \"Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes. In the case of capital murder and life destroying sexual crimes, the death penalty should be allowed, as it is a powerful deterrent and, if the criminal takes it upon themselves to take control of the life of another and ruin it/ take it, the state/federal government should reserve the power to do so as well.\",\n \"Is the death penalty appropriate or should it be banned But its not right for the government and others to be able to put people to death and then it not be okay for normal people to do it.\",\n \"the death penalty should be allowed I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.\",\n \"Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes\",\n \"Death penalty Do you think the death penalty should be legal even now\",\n \"Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes I agree; Canada should allow the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes.\",\n \"The Death Penalty In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?\",\n \"Debater's Choice Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty,\",\n \"should death penitently stay The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.\",\n \"The death penalty should be allowed The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.\",\n \"Death Penalty should be allowed I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.\",\n \"death penalty should the death penalty be allowed?\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":39,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Student Loan Debt\nI thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's \"contention\"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's \"arguments\"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave \"Jimmy\" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying \"cool knick knacks.\" Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan – they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, \"the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession.\" [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...","Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian\nLooks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.","Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor\nI feel like this has been a discussion about student loans more so than Reaganomics. Both of us seem to agree that student loan debt is a big problem. But, where we disagree is supply side economics. What I’ve been trying to say is that more often than not, money given to poor and middle class people will be put back into the economy. Those who are defaulting on their student loans are a minority (although a noticeable one). Most of them would spend the money on something else since they are already paying off their student loans. If you give that money to a rich person, that money will just sit there and not be pumped back into the economy. The GOP claims that their platform will create jobs and opportunities for all. However, in reality, all it does is enrich the already rich. Look at all their corporate donors (I realize that Democrats have them too). Is it a surprise that they are trying to make them richer? You would expect them to serve those who are funding their campaigns first. If rich people are donating tons of money to their campaigns, then they are going to serve the interests of the rich. That’s why the GOP continues Reaganomics. Do you seriously believe that they are going to look out for the average person before their campaign donors? The Republican Party is the party of the rich. A lot of what you see promoting Reaganomics is corporate propaganda. The myth that wealth “trickles down” has been debunked so many times. Why doesn’t it work? I feel like I can’t say this enough, but it fails because the more wealth that goes to the top (and stays there), the less wealth that’s available for the middle class so less demand is created. This actually harms job growth, and this makes sense given studies done on it. Please, tell me how fixing the student loan problem will enable supply side economics to work. I’m still waiting for an answer. Wouldn’t that wealth just stay at the top? Why would the rich spend it if the poor and middle class aren’t burdened by student loans? I don’t get it. So, when can we expect to see a “trickle?” If the poor and middle class are supposed to benefit from supply side economics, then when will that happen? Why hasn’t it happened now? You’re telling me that supply side economics is supposed to benefit the economy as a whole. That hasn’t happened yet. The rich just pocket that extra money and don’t spend it because they don’t need to. What creates jobs is demand, and that’s how we benefit the economy as a whole. Cutting taxes on the rich decreases demand due to an increase in wealth inequality. Give it to people that would actually need it and you would see it pumped back into the economy. You’ve been arguing that this won’t happen because many are burdened by student loans. Although a noticeable minority is drowning in their student loan debt, many people would still be able to pump it back into the economy because they would need to spend it on other things. Most graduates do end up finding a job and paying off their student loans in a timely manner.I know that I intended this round to be a conclusion of our overall arguments, but I feel like I would just be repeating what I’ve said before. So, I’m going to do some more rebuttals. 1. “Exactly. So any \"trickle down\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless.” But, as I’ve told you, a lot of people are already paying off their student loans in a timely manner, so if they were given extra money they would probably spend it on something else. There are also quite a bit of poor and middle class people that don’t even have student loans to pay back (either because they never got them or already paid them off). So, a lot of that money would actually be pumped back into the economy. Don’t you think that student loans are a separate problem? If we elect someone like Bernie Sanders, maybe something will be done about the problem of sky high college costs. I would agree that college costs are out of control these days and that we must do something. High college costs further burden the poor and middle class. But, look at what Reaganomics has done to them. Wealth inequality and the national debt have exploded. GDP growth is said to have been slowed down. Like I’ve been saying, if you give a rich person money, he or she won’t have the urge to go out and spend it. Why? Because he or she will not need to. So, you won’t see a trickle giving the money to the rich people, so why do it? At least giving money to poor and middle class people actually help them. They need it given the conditions of the economy today. 2. “If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500.” What if that person is working on paying off the student loan debt? The government doesn’t just take any money they acquire to pay off the student loan if they are already paying on it. If one defaults on the loan, then that could happen. Although a considerable number of people are burdened by student loans and may never pay them off, a lot of people are successfully paying them off. Remember that most people who graduate college do end up getting jobs. Those that do get jobs and pay off student loans are pumping that money back into the economy. 3. “How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference.” So, aren’t you admitting that giving money to poor and middle class people does go back into the economy (assuming they aren’t drowning in debt)? Then why not fix the student loan problem and give them more money? Or, at the very least, why not give them more money? It would help them and in many cases it would go back into the economy. More often than not it would be put back into the economy. It’s better than giving it to a rich person as it will not be pumped back into the economy. This wasn’t intended to be an argument about student loans. It was intended to be an argument about Reaganomics. What I’m trying to say is that when you give more money to the rich, it doesn’t get invested back into the economy, so what is the point? To make them even richer? Isn’t wealth inequality high enough these days? 4. “This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels.” It does but remember we are debating Reaganomics, not student loans. If a graduate is paying off his or her student loans, don’t you think that he or she could use some extra money? Don’t you think that he or she would pump it back into the economy by saving up for a mortgage, car, or whatever? Wouldn’t that money be pumped back into the economy? Remember that most graduates are paying off their student loans, so any money would be beneficial. 5. \"Trickle down\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. But that new wealth at the top doesn’t circulate throughout the market. It just stays concentrated at the top. Look at the increase in wealth inequality since the 1980s. You will see that the rich just continue to get richer. All that money that they are keeping is not helping the economy as a whole. Why? Because the rich don’t pump that money back into the economy. They have no need to. Do you see the connection? 6. “In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history.” But that prosperity went to those at the top. Average Americans did not get a huge share of all the prosperity that was created. Look at how that economic boon ended. It ended in a crash caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. Millions lost their jobs and homes. So, was all the economic growth for those at the top worth it considering it ended up being a disaster for the poor and middle class in the end? Sources: 1.http://www.forbes.com... 2.http://fortune.com... 3.http://www.examiner.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://michiganradio.org...","studying is not the only way to get rich\nHi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me. lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that \"SOME OF THEASE\" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide \"not all of them, and it is a real fact and not \"OUTRAGIOUS\" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that. first I want to start by some real stories: i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family\"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed) here are some more real tragic stories Toby Thorn from England, had \"8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over \"40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his \"1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the \"14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 \"\" from 75 to 112. source(www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession) Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt: Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it\"s been severely under-reported. I can\"t ignore it though, because I\"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I\"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.http://newworkplace.wordpress.com... In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:http://EzineArticles.com... here is a note from a suicidal student from America \"I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a predatory banking system coming after us. There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully come to the forefront of public consciousness.\" source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, \"Up to Our Eyeballs\" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he \"retires,\" in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I could go on this topic................. ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says \"on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success.\" not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly \"peace of mind\", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those\" successfully hired graduates\" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old? you also did say \"'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts\" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate) also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are \"underemployed\" not \"unemployed\" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads\"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education \"\" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions\" here is the source again :http://www.huffingtonpost.com... look back maybe your eyes work this time. and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree :http://www.businessinsider.com... interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads \"In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to \"\" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree\" with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in operation.by his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young. I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option. I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....)","You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans\nI think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.","No debt\nUniversity should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.","Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing\nPersonal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!","Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.\nI will separate my arguments into 5 sections so as to make them more structured. Federal Student Loans Have Caused an Education Bubble Over the past few decades, tuition has skyrocketed inside the United States. Between 1978 and 2012, the tuition in the US has increased 1210%, or 12-fold. (1) This is also 4 times faster than the increase in the consumer price index. This is obviously a huge problem, so the first steps we must take to come up with a solution is to look for the cause or causes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, stated that \"The basic problem is simple: Give everyone $100 to pay for higher education and colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. And inflation-adjusted aid--most of it federal--has certainly gone up, ballooning from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced priced has artificially inflated the price of college education. Thus begins a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. Yet this higher education bubble, like the housing bubble, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market. \"(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that “Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student’s tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. \"(2) Federal Student Loans Have Cause a Rise in Tuition As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that “It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increase, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted. ”(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. (4) Federal Student Loans have Harmed Students Not only do student loans cause a rise in tuition, they also harm students various ways. A. Cause Unemployment In 2012, about 1.5 million, or 56%, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest since in of least 11 years. (5) How could this have happened? Patrick Hedger explains \"“Federal student loans, which are soon to be the only education loans available, severely up start the market and are directly responsible for the surge of under-and unemployed youths with bachelor’s degrees. ” B. Students are Negatively Impacted by Debt The American Association of State Colleges and Universities found that “Students often see higher education as the primary path to upward mobility, but when they accumulate excessive debt, this pathway quickly becomes riddled with pitfalls. Students graduate with debt may put off life milestones such as buying a car, owning a home, getting married, or entering certain low paying professions like teaching or social work. ” (6) Also from the AASCU, “Particularly worrisome is that the number of college graduates with $40,000 in student loan debt has increase 10-fold in the past decade. Those numbers pose long-term threats to recent college graduates lifelong decisions, but the financial future of borrowers who do not earn a degree is even bleaker. ” C. Student Loans Harms Students' Credit Score Student loans also put many students at risk of ruining their credit score if they fail to pay off the extremely high debt on time. “Because your student loans are little to be your first significant loan into the world of credit, it’s imperative that you handle these loans wisely. ” “Missing even one payment can trash your Credit Score. And a bad Credit Score can lead to higher costs for loans, higher insurance premiums, and trouble when attempting to get a job or an apartment. ”(7) Defaulting on a student loan goes on your credit report and can seriously hinder your ability to get a loan later in your life. Student Loan defaulters are restricted in their access to bankruptcy protection. The IRS can seize defaulters’ income tax refunds, and students who default on an education are prohibited from participating in the student loan program thereafter. (8) Sadly, many students end up defaulting on their loans, ruining their credit scores. Last year one in 10 recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education. (9) Alternatives My opponent will likely state that federal student loans are necessary for our education system. I will contend there are better alternatives. Tax Credits I support the expansion of the tax credit system for low-income students. Currently, there are various tax credits already available to students. (10) The American Opportunity Tax Credit those eligible qualify for the maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student. The Lifetime Learning may allow students and parents to claim up to $2,000 for qualified education expenses paid for all students enrolled in eligible educational institutions. Deductions are also available to student, The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. The benefits of the tax credit system is it decreases the cost burden on low-income workers without putting poor students into huge amounts of debt. Another benefit is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything, it simply decreases taxes for the individuals it's intended to help. Work and Study Working while going to college is a viable alternative to students who need money to pay for tuition. Not only does the money you earn pay for the tuition, but there are also other benefits. One benefit of working while in college is that it can help build your resume, regardless if the job is in your field, according to a Scholarships. com article on balancing work and college. (11) There are also Vocational Programs, Grants, Direct Aid, Scholarships, and investment plans. As I've run out of time and characters, I will go into alternatives deeper next round. Sources 1. . http://mercatus.org... 2. . http://dailycaller.com... 3. . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. . http://www.aascu.org... 7. . http://articles.latimes.com... 8. Chang, Cello. “The Impact of College Debt and costs”. Dis. California State Polytechnic University. Pomona. 2000. Print. P.12 9. . http://www.irs.gov... 10. . http://www.benefits.gov... 11. . http://www.schools.com..."],"string":"[\n \"Student Loan Debt\\nI thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's \\\"contention\\\"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's \\\"arguments\\\"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave \\\"Jimmy\\\" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying \\\"cool knick knacks.\\\" Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan – they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, \\\"the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession.\\\" [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian\\nLooks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.\",\n \"Wealth doesn't \\\"trickle down\\\" from the rich to the poor\\nI feel like this has been a discussion about student loans more so than Reaganomics. Both of us seem to agree that student loan debt is a big problem. But, where we disagree is supply side economics. What I’ve been trying to say is that more often than not, money given to poor and middle class people will be put back into the economy. Those who are defaulting on their student loans are a minority (although a noticeable one). Most of them would spend the money on something else since they are already paying off their student loans. If you give that money to a rich person, that money will just sit there and not be pumped back into the economy. The GOP claims that their platform will create jobs and opportunities for all. However, in reality, all it does is enrich the already rich. Look at all their corporate donors (I realize that Democrats have them too). Is it a surprise that they are trying to make them richer? You would expect them to serve those who are funding their campaigns first. If rich people are donating tons of money to their campaigns, then they are going to serve the interests of the rich. That’s why the GOP continues Reaganomics. Do you seriously believe that they are going to look out for the average person before their campaign donors? The Republican Party is the party of the rich. A lot of what you see promoting Reaganomics is corporate propaganda. The myth that wealth “trickles down” has been debunked so many times. Why doesn’t it work? I feel like I can’t say this enough, but it fails because the more wealth that goes to the top (and stays there), the less wealth that’s available for the middle class so less demand is created. This actually harms job growth, and this makes sense given studies done on it. Please, tell me how fixing the student loan problem will enable supply side economics to work. I’m still waiting for an answer. Wouldn’t that wealth just stay at the top? Why would the rich spend it if the poor and middle class aren’t burdened by student loans? I don’t get it. So, when can we expect to see a “trickle?” If the poor and middle class are supposed to benefit from supply side economics, then when will that happen? Why hasn’t it happened now? You’re telling me that supply side economics is supposed to benefit the economy as a whole. That hasn’t happened yet. The rich just pocket that extra money and don’t spend it because they don’t need to. What creates jobs is demand, and that’s how we benefit the economy as a whole. Cutting taxes on the rich decreases demand due to an increase in wealth inequality. Give it to people that would actually need it and you would see it pumped back into the economy. You’ve been arguing that this won’t happen because many are burdened by student loans. Although a noticeable minority is drowning in their student loan debt, many people would still be able to pump it back into the economy because they would need to spend it on other things. Most graduates do end up finding a job and paying off their student loans in a timely manner.I know that I intended this round to be a conclusion of our overall arguments, but I feel like I would just be repeating what I’ve said before. So, I’m going to do some more rebuttals. 1. “Exactly. So any \\\"trickle down\\\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless.” But, as I’ve told you, a lot of people are already paying off their student loans in a timely manner, so if they were given extra money they would probably spend it on something else. There are also quite a bit of poor and middle class people that don’t even have student loans to pay back (either because they never got them or already paid them off). So, a lot of that money would actually be pumped back into the economy. Don’t you think that student loans are a separate problem? If we elect someone like Bernie Sanders, maybe something will be done about the problem of sky high college costs. I would agree that college costs are out of control these days and that we must do something. High college costs further burden the poor and middle class. But, look at what Reaganomics has done to them. Wealth inequality and the national debt have exploded. GDP growth is said to have been slowed down. Like I’ve been saying, if you give a rich person money, he or she won’t have the urge to go out and spend it. Why? Because he or she will not need to. So, you won’t see a trickle giving the money to the rich people, so why do it? At least giving money to poor and middle class people actually help them. They need it given the conditions of the economy today. 2. “If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500.” What if that person is working on paying off the student loan debt? The government doesn’t just take any money they acquire to pay off the student loan if they are already paying on it. If one defaults on the loan, then that could happen. Although a considerable number of people are burdened by student loans and may never pay them off, a lot of people are successfully paying them off. Remember that most people who graduate college do end up getting jobs. Those that do get jobs and pay off student loans are pumping that money back into the economy. 3. “How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference.” So, aren’t you admitting that giving money to poor and middle class people does go back into the economy (assuming they aren’t drowning in debt)? Then why not fix the student loan problem and give them more money? Or, at the very least, why not give them more money? It would help them and in many cases it would go back into the economy. More often than not it would be put back into the economy. It’s better than giving it to a rich person as it will not be pumped back into the economy. This wasn’t intended to be an argument about student loans. It was intended to be an argument about Reaganomics. What I’m trying to say is that when you give more money to the rich, it doesn’t get invested back into the economy, so what is the point? To make them even richer? Isn’t wealth inequality high enough these days? 4. “This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels.” It does but remember we are debating Reaganomics, not student loans. If a graduate is paying off his or her student loans, don’t you think that he or she could use some extra money? Don’t you think that he or she would pump it back into the economy by saving up for a mortgage, car, or whatever? Wouldn’t that money be pumped back into the economy? Remember that most graduates are paying off their student loans, so any money would be beneficial. 5. \\\"Trickle down\\\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. But that new wealth at the top doesn’t circulate throughout the market. It just stays concentrated at the top. Look at the increase in wealth inequality since the 1980s. You will see that the rich just continue to get richer. All that money that they are keeping is not helping the economy as a whole. Why? Because the rich don’t pump that money back into the economy. They have no need to. Do you see the connection? 6. “In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history.” But that prosperity went to those at the top. Average Americans did not get a huge share of all the prosperity that was created. Look at how that economic boon ended. It ended in a crash caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. Millions lost their jobs and homes. So, was all the economic growth for those at the top worth it considering it ended up being a disaster for the poor and middle class in the end? Sources: 1.http://www.forbes.com... 2.http://fortune.com... 3.http://www.examiner.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://michiganradio.org...\",\n \"studying is not the only way to get rich\\nHi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me. lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that \\\"SOME OF THEASE\\\" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide \\\"not all of them, and it is a real fact and not \\\"OUTRAGIOUS\\\" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that. first I want to start by some real stories: i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family\\\"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed) here are some more real tragic stories Toby Thorn from England, had \\\"8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over \\\"40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his \\\"1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the \\\"14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 \\\"\\\" from 75 to 112. source(www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession) Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt: Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it\\\"s been severely under-reported. I can\\\"t ignore it though, because I\\\"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I\\\"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.http://newworkplace.wordpress.com... In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:http://EzineArticles.com... here is a note from a suicidal student from America \\\"I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a predatory banking system coming after us. There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully come to the forefront of public consciousness.\\\" source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, \\\"Up to Our Eyeballs\\\" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he \\\"retires,\\\" in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I could go on this topic................. ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says \\\"on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success.\\\" not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly \\\"peace of mind\\\", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those\\\" successfully hired graduates\\\" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old? you also did say \\\"'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts\\\" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate) also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are \\\"underemployed\\\" not \\\"unemployed\\\" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads\\\"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education \\\"\\\" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions\\\" here is the source again :http://www.huffingtonpost.com... look back maybe your eyes work this time. and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree :http://www.businessinsider.com... interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads \\\"In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to \\\"\\\" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree\\\" with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in operation.by his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young. I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option. I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....)\",\n \"You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans\\nI think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.\",\n \"No debt\\nUniversity should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing\\nPersonal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \\\"stealing\\\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \\\"borrow\\\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \\\"pay back\\\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \\\"negative\\\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!\",\n \"Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.\\nI will separate my arguments into 5 sections so as to make them more structured. Federal Student Loans Have Caused an Education Bubble Over the past few decades, tuition has skyrocketed inside the United States. Between 1978 and 2012, the tuition in the US has increased 1210%, or 12-fold. (1) This is also 4 times faster than the increase in the consumer price index. This is obviously a huge problem, so the first steps we must take to come up with a solution is to look for the cause or causes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, stated that \\\"The basic problem is simple: Give everyone $100 to pay for higher education and colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. And inflation-adjusted aid--most of it federal--has certainly gone up, ballooning from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced priced has artificially inflated the price of college education. Thus begins a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. Yet this higher education bubble, like the housing bubble, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market. \\\"(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that “Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student’s tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. \\\"(2) Federal Student Loans Have Cause a Rise in Tuition As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that “It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increase, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted. ”(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. (4) Federal Student Loans have Harmed Students Not only do student loans cause a rise in tuition, they also harm students various ways. A. Cause Unemployment In 2012, about 1.5 million, or 56%, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest since in of least 11 years. (5) How could this have happened? Patrick Hedger explains \\\"“Federal student loans, which are soon to be the only education loans available, severely up start the market and are directly responsible for the surge of under-and unemployed youths with bachelor’s degrees. ” B. Students are Negatively Impacted by Debt The American Association of State Colleges and Universities found that “Students often see higher education as the primary path to upward mobility, but when they accumulate excessive debt, this pathway quickly becomes riddled with pitfalls. Students graduate with debt may put off life milestones such as buying a car, owning a home, getting married, or entering certain low paying professions like teaching or social work. ” (6) Also from the AASCU, “Particularly worrisome is that the number of college graduates with $40,000 in student loan debt has increase 10-fold in the past decade. Those numbers pose long-term threats to recent college graduates lifelong decisions, but the financial future of borrowers who do not earn a degree is even bleaker. ” C. Student Loans Harms Students' Credit Score Student loans also put many students at risk of ruining their credit score if they fail to pay off the extremely high debt on time. “Because your student loans are little to be your first significant loan into the world of credit, it’s imperative that you handle these loans wisely. ” “Missing even one payment can trash your Credit Score. And a bad Credit Score can lead to higher costs for loans, higher insurance premiums, and trouble when attempting to get a job or an apartment. ”(7) Defaulting on a student loan goes on your credit report and can seriously hinder your ability to get a loan later in your life. Student Loan defaulters are restricted in their access to bankruptcy protection. The IRS can seize defaulters’ income tax refunds, and students who default on an education are prohibited from participating in the student loan program thereafter. (8) Sadly, many students end up defaulting on their loans, ruining their credit scores. Last year one in 10 recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education. (9) Alternatives My opponent will likely state that federal student loans are necessary for our education system. I will contend there are better alternatives. Tax Credits I support the expansion of the tax credit system for low-income students. Currently, there are various tax credits already available to students. (10) The American Opportunity Tax Credit those eligible qualify for the maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student. The Lifetime Learning may allow students and parents to claim up to $2,000 for qualified education expenses paid for all students enrolled in eligible educational institutions. Deductions are also available to student, The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. The benefits of the tax credit system is it decreases the cost burden on low-income workers without putting poor students into huge amounts of debt. Another benefit is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything, it simply decreases taxes for the individuals it's intended to help. Work and Study Working while going to college is a viable alternative to students who need money to pay for tuition. Not only does the money you earn pay for the tuition, but there are also other benefits. One benefit of working while in college is that it can help build your resume, regardless if the job is in your field, according to a Scholarships. com article on balancing work and college. (11) There are also Vocational Programs, Grants, Direct Aid, Scholarships, and investment plans. As I've run out of time and characters, I will go into alternatives deeper next round. Sources 1. . http://mercatus.org... 2. . http://dailycaller.com... 3. . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. . http://www.aascu.org... 7. . http://articles.latimes.com... 8. Chang, Cello. “The Impact of College Debt and costs”. Dis. California State Polytechnic University. Pomona. 2000. Print. P.12 9. . http://www.irs.gov... 10. . http://www.benefits.gov... 11. . http://www.schools.com...\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["A bill to increase funding for the biosciences I disagree, I think America has much more urgent matters on their hands like the growing debt that is owed. America should indeed reallocate those funds but towards paying the debt off before trying to invest in something like that.","Bachelor's Degree The topic for today's debate is \" is it right to advocate for completing an Associate Degree as fast as possible and go out to work as soon as possible? \" My opponent didn't define any terms which are important which are important for a debate, so I will define the terms we will be going by for today's debate. I define Right as fair I define Advocate or Suggest as a person who argues for a cause I define Completing as to finish I define Associate Degree as an undergraduate program requiring 60 credits to complete I define as soon as possible as the earliest possible moment Since my opponent didn't give a criterion, I will give my own. The criteria the judges should be using for today's debate should be: Encourage a stable life financially ( since finance decides a lot of things like whether you eat or not) So my opponent's first contention is that work experience isn't as important as being educated. This is simply is not true. Since we're talking about being financially stable it's obvious that work experience is highly preferred by employers that you need to be financially stable. according to a 2013 report by High Fliers Research, they concluded that college graduates without work experience had \"little chance\" of getting a job. This proves that education isn't more important when talking about financial stability. My opponent's second contention is that people like Bill gates and Steve jobs have dropped out of college and had great success and they treated education as more important. This is not representative of what the majority of people who drop out of college can expect nor do we see it happen right now. The median income for a college graduate is around 51,000 and the average income for a high school graduate is 27,000. That is a huge difference. A reason a lot of college students don't graduate is because of poor preparation, and Bill Gates says himself stay in school. My opponent's third contention is going to work early is not a good way to do. I would like to argue that internships count as job experience and job experience is very important to employers, and to financially stable you need to have a good job to pay back whatever loans you took out. Now I will provide some counter contentions 1) My first contention: Finishing college as fast as possible means that you save money. For example, The University of Kentucky's tuition is 24,000 a year. If you can shed 12,000 off the total cost by graduating a semester early and take 12,000 off the final total then it's well worth it and it would be completely right to advocate for that kind of financial responsibility. 2) My second contention: Graduating early means you get to live in better dorms at whatever college you attend, because after you accumulate a certain number of credits the school sees you as a sophomore and you get to stay in upper-classmen dorms. This provides for a better college experience on top of saving money. For all of these reasons, I would urge a strong vote for affirmative side.","A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest \"student loans\" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.","Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren Thank you imabench for your post, now without further adieu... Elizabeth Warren has many credentials that qualify her as being a great president. 1) She is a senator from Massachusetts. Elizabeth Warren has been given support by her people of Massachusetts to represent them in Senate. That means she has gotten widespread support from her state, as only two senators are allowed to be elected from each state. She stands as the common woman who made herself into an upperclass lady [1]. This means she knows the struggles of those in the lower class and will do what she can to help them in the right way. Right now this is something we need in a President. We need someone who knows both the lower and upper class life. Senator Warren brings the prime example of both. 2) She has been a law professor for an extensive amount of time. \"During the late-1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance. Warren taught at the Rutgers School of Law\"Newark during 1977\"1978, the University of Houston Law Center from 1978 to 1983, and the University of Texas School of Law from 1981 to 1987, in addition to teaching at the University of Michigan as a visiting professor in 1985 and as a research associate at the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987.\" [2] This shows her intellectual capability. As a professor she wrote nine books (two of which became national best sellers) and more than a hundred articles. This obviously directs to the fact that she spends a lot of time thinking about law and especially bankruptcy law as that is her speciality [1]. It's important to know that she specializes in bankruptcy law considering America's economy. It is absolutely necessary that we fix the economy, and who better to spearhead that movement than Elizabeth Warren? As stated earlier she has an understanding of both the lower and upper class to be able to make things fair, and she is an excellent professor in the area of bankruptcy law. 3) She chair of the TARP \"In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Her independent and tireless efforts to protect taxpayers, to hold Wall Street accountable, and to ensure tough oversight of both the Bush and Obama Administrations won praise from both sides of the aisle. The Boston Globe named Elizabeth Bostonian of the Year in 2009 for her oversight efforts.\" [1] She has shown to specialize in the exact area our country needs. Between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, Warren is certainly the best candidate for the Presidency. Sources: [1] http://elizabethwarren.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...","The cap would deprive individuals with bad credit of possibility to borrow The opposition's argument here is a masterclass in flip-flopping. On one hand they support 'rationally' (we use this term VERY loosely) made risky loans, on the other they demand government-provided education for borrowers. On one hand they believe the debt spiral is not worth government intervention, on the other hand they demand more transparency in loan agreements. The reality is that cleanly spelled out theory does not capture the dangers that risky loans have for both the borrower and broader society (that third party that DOES suffer). First, the state often intervenes when people make bad decisions that have consequences for themselves (drugs, suicide, sometimes gambling, seat belt usage). We do this because: (a) rationality is very hard to prove - when someone is in a debt spiral they are *not* rational, they are desperate and act out of desperation, as our sources show (and actually as the opposition concedes when they say this is a 'last resort'); (b) those people who are making bad decisions become easy prey for people looking to bleed them dry, and thus they need state protection; (c) damages to an individual's life generally have broader consequences for families and friends who are *not* implicated in the decision making process. Second, there is tangible third party harm - the harm to society that we outlined at the beginning. Risky loaning is dangerous (as the last 12 months have shown - bankers being ABLE to make dangerous risky loans that are never going to be paid back) and undercuts savings. Third, the opposition's soft support actions (education and information and transparency) are (a) not mutually exclusive with our policy, and (b) unlikely to be able to help - information campaigns have failed, unequivocally, to prevent the massive growth of drug abuse in most parts of the world (and the spread of AIDS/HIV, and the proliferation of gambling addiction, etc etc etc). Finally, the reality is that people cannot live and survive on credit or loans, and any society that endorses this is bound to run into problems (blossoming debt crises across the world, as we cited earlier). Eventually debt will come back to bite the borrower, sooner or later. The later it is, the more deadly the venom.","Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis... While it is true that debt payments place a serious burden on governments, one also needs to consider what kind of governments are talking about. Because current debt-relief programmes such as the HIPC scheme are already rewarding countries for good governance, some of the poorest states will in future have little debt to forgive in the event of a natural disaster. Only those which refuse to meet international norms for governance and human rights are keeping their debts and so will be in line for debt-forgiveness after a future mass tragedy. Sadly, in many cases these have governments that are involved in civil wars, killing their own populations as well as others; they are governments that waste most of the aid that comes into their countries; governments that use development funds to feed their own foreign bank accounts; and governments that engage in serious human rights violations. Forgiving the debts of such states will do nothing for those struck by disaster and will make a mockery of the existing debt relief schemes.","The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed As my opponent forfeited the last round, I will use this final round to summarize my points. Persons who are economically disadvantaged -- primarily minorities who do not have significant inheritances and persons with expensive medical problems -- have disproportionate difficulty paying debts. The wanton over-use of credit scores exascerbates the problem, making a few missed payments on one bill cause all others to drastically increase, so someone who was struggling and barely managing will have little chance of catching up. A significant percentage of debts afflicting credit scores are the result of student loans -- which most persons not born into wealth or lucky enough to win a scholarship need for a post-secondary education which we are all taught to believe is necessary to have any chance at a decent income -- and medical debt. Denying someone with difficulty paying bills the opportunity for a job assures they will never have a chance to catch up. It creates an artificial hurdle to people who start out economically disadvantaged to be able to overcome poverty by getting a better job, a better place to rent, affordable car insurance, etc. This unintentional conspiracy between credit bureaus, billing departments, employers and other businesses wreaks havoc in peoples' lives by making it difficult for the disadvantaged to have a fair opportunity to overcome those difficulties. A record of a person's debt and their ability to pay them off has no bearing on their work ethic; someone with a bad credit score can be an excellent worker whilst someone with a high credit score can be a poor worker. There is no valid reason to discriminate against prospective employees because they had problems paying bills; it is simply unfair and unjust. The same rings true for leasing or paying for insurance -- since you pay for the month ahead, you have already paid for service and there is no risk of your not paying what you already paid. This is especially true for people who pre-pay six months or more; they should be billed no differently than a person with the highest possible credit rating since, paying ahead, there is zero chance a bill will not be paid in that time. Using a credit score as a determinant is then purely punitive, a sort of corporate vigilantism against poor people. Credit scores should only be used to determine a person's suitability in obtaining a loan. Anything else is discriminatory. If you agree there are any circumstances where refusing employment or service to a person because of their credit score is unfair and uncalled for, I urge you to vote in favor of curtailing credit scores. Thank you, voters, for reading, and participating in my debate, I hope you have enjoyed it and I hope it has been informative for you.","Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt Observations Taxes- a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. Debt- something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another Credit Rating- a classification of credit risk based on investigation of a customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred. From Dictionary.com Observation 1 - The only way for the government to gain money besides taxes right now would be to take out more loans, which will put them into deeper debt. Contentions 1.The debt will lower the united states credit rating, making getting money in the future from other countries/people more expensive in the future, making taxes higher in the future 2.The government has no other form of income besides taxes Contention 1- The debt will lower the United States credit rating, making taking out more loans more expensive in the future, which makes future taxes higher. A credit rating is based on many things, such as \"customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred.\" If your credit rating is bad, you need to pay more interest on your loans, because the lender is less sure you will pay the loan back. The United States, according to treasurydirect.gov, paid $8,702,166,816.21 in October alone, and that was a good month. The united states paid $430,812,121,372.05 last year. That's $35,901,010,114.3375 a month! Granted, 430 billion a year isn\"t much compared to 17 trillion, but if we multiply $430,812,121,372.05 by 4, without adjusting for the increasing debt, we get $1,723,248,485,488.2 as our interest debt from 2014 to 2018. That means we produce nearly a trillion dollars in interest debt every two years, and soon, it will be even more. 1 trillion dollars onto a 17 trillion dollar debt matters. Now, this all leads back to credit rating. Soon, the United States will not be able to take out more loans without its credit rating dropping, making it more expensive to take out more loans, getting them into deeper debt that lowers their credit rating again. Lets look back and see what makes up a credit rating. A \"customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred.\" The United States literally has no money. They do have gold and oil, but the only way for the government to make revenue off of that would be to tax to companies who mine/dig for it. The United States cannot maintain their great prior payment pattern in such great debt, as they cannot pay off old loans without taking out new ones. Finally, similar to prior payment patterns, the united states will not be able to keep up it\"s amazing history of always paying back loans when it has so many. Now that we have shown why the debt matters, lets look at why taxes are the best way to stop or slow it down. Contention 2- The government has no income besides taxes and loans This argument is very straight forwards. The government makes consistent money in two ways, taxes and loans. The previous contention explains why the government cannot take out so many loans, so taxes are the only way they can make money. Corrections/ factual misconceptions in my opponents case 1.The only way for the government to make money off of oil/gold/other resources would be to tax the companies that mine them. 2.My opponent stated Japan\"s economy is the 25th best in the world. According to the website he sited, http://www.heritage.org..., Japan\"s economy is 25th freest, in the world, not best. According to BBC, http://www.bbc.com..., \"The country (Japan) has been struggling economically for around 20 years\"","Risk of default/crisis justifies Obama raising debt limit Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. \"Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own.\" New York Times. July 22nd, 2011: \"Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession.\"","Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers \"Saving Detroit\". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"The carmakers retort that being in Chapter 11 will poison their business. Buying a new car is a long-term gamble on there being dealers, spare parts and a thriving second-hand market for your vehicle. Drivers overwhelmingly tell surveys that they would not take the risk when Mercedes and Toyota make perfectly good alternatives. But $50 billion is a lot to stake on a hunch. A wiser bet is that whatever consumers say today, the stigma of being in Chapter 11 would fade, obscured by price cuts, advertising and most of all news that the car companies were tackling their remaining problems. Remember that, in many ways, Chapter 11 is more stable and predictable than depending upon the government.\"","Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com... Shareholders’ interests are poorly protected if at all in Chapter 11-style bankruptcies. Usually, such a process will substantially reduce or even wipe out altogether the shareholders’ interest in the company (in which case they typically pass to the creditors). This is a court-backed removal of their property rights. It is not fair that the interests of the creditors or other parties should be put ahead of the interests of the shareholders in this way, especially because the shareholders like the creditors perform an important role in providing the risk capital which is necessary for businesses to function and grow.","Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers","Higher Education (Full Resolution in R1) I stand for a solid affirmation of the resolved 3 key reasons. First, Necessity. The second, Societal benefits, and the third, economic benefits. With that I will begin on 4 pieces of overview which will lay the framework for the affirmative case. The sole burden of the affirmative is to prove in a cost benefit analysis that the people of the United States would be bettered by the Federal Government ensuring higher education is affordable. It is not my burden to prove solvency at any point in this debate. If I am being held up at gun point, it would be in my best interest to stop my attacker because then I live and keep my stuff the attacker is trying to rob me of. But just because it is in my best interest doesn't mean it is possible. However, if it becomes needed I reserve the right to introduce a plan for solvency later in the debate. Higher education refers to any education above the high school level. Whether it is technical certification, an associates, bachelors, masters, or doctoral education. All of them are applicable. There is a divide between what is best for the people of a nation and the government of a nation. For example, if the Neg proves that the government loses soft power or that a certain party is weakened by affirming, unless they tie is back to the people of the United States, they get no offence. With that I will begin. ==Contention One: Necessity=====Subpoint A: Costly Colleges have Limits and harms===According to a study backed by the Lumina Foundation, 29% of Low Income, High Scoring 8th graders finished college compared to 75% of their high income counter parts. (1) Furthermore, the US department of Education finds that when students are worried about the costs of college, they are less likely to attend (2) The Economist Reports that college graduates make more money than their peers with just a high school diploma. (3) When you negate, you maintain the status quo and you allow these costly colleges to continue to have their limits. This perpetuates income inequality, because as the Washington Post reports, increased access to higher education would allow the growing income inequality to be moderated. This is going to be important because the Washington Post outlines that income inequality increases tuition costs, increases spending, and increases the needed amount of financial aid. This puts the negative world into a viscous cycle. By voting aff, you break this cycle. (4)===Subpoint B: The Government Must intervene===Before I get into the evidence and analysis, lets look at this logically. The Federal Government is the only actor who has total jurdisticion, and despite any current economic woes, no other actor willing to take action has the same amount of funding as the federal government. Furthermore, the government is obligated by the Social Contract to act in a way that is best for its citizens. Now lets look at some evidence here. In the Status Quo, market forces are allowed to dictate prices. These market forces are more geared towards profits and higher fees than what the people need. (1) Secondly, the federal government is the best actor in this situation. According to a study published by Harvard and the Brookings institute, the federal government is the superior actor to provide educational subsides. State Governments, when choosing to provide educational subsides, they must directly take funding from another area. The federal government doesn't have the same drawback, and even if the negative convinces you that they do, because they are so much larger than any of the 50 state governments, the federal government could better mitigate the costs. (5) ==Contention 2: Higher Education benefits Society== By exposing people to new events and experiences, higher education provides several benefits to society. First, The Bedford Group finds that those with higher education are more racially tolerant. (6) Racism decreases social cohesion and leads to numerous harms. The Australian Human Rights Commission finds that racism decreases physical and mental health, reduces productivity, and reduces life span. (7) Going further, those with higher education are healthier. Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found similar results, with their findings concluding that, on average, every additional year of schooling extends one’s life by roughly half a year. (8) Finally, according to a study published by the College Board, those with college certifications are more likely to get proper exercise than those without. (9).And finally, those with higher education are less likely to be depressed and have better mental health. (10) What this means is that by increasing access to higher education, you better society. On that you vote pro based off the fact that we better the people directly.==Contention 3: Jobs and Wages==As already stated, those with a higher education make more money. But to go further. A report by Georgetown University states that by 2020, 55 million new jobs will be created. Of those Jobs, 35% of these will require at least Bachelor's Degree and 30% of jobs will require an associates degree or some college. This means that a grand total of 65% of jobs will require at least some higher education. (11) Going further, Women who finish 2 years of college have 37 to 39% more income than those with a high school degree. A similar, but less extreme trend was observed with men. (12) In the status quo, the Atlantic reports that 600,000 jobs went unfilled because of a lack of skilled labor. (13)To break the cycle of income inequality, to better society, and to fill the current and future job gap, I can only see an affirmative ballot. I wait patiently for the negative case.","debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts","college tuition too expensive Tamar Lewin published an article \"Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows\" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.","The lack of universal health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy A Harvard study indicates that a lack of universal health care is a leading cause in 50% of bankruptcies filed annually in the United States.","This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channe... Where would you draw the line? The proposition seems to assume that only developing countries suffer from natural disasters, and so require debt relief. In fact, natural disasters can strike a wide range of countries and it is not clear if your scheme would not also apply to middle-income or even rich states. In recent years the United States has been struck by several devastating hurricanes, and many people believe an enormous Californian earthquake is overdue. Given the huge foreign debts of the US government, why shouldn’t it apply for debt relief too in such situations? And what about Japan, for example after the Kobe earthquake? After all, given the much greater physical infrastructure of such countries compared to developing ones, the cost of damage done by a similar natural disaster will be very much higher.","Withholding bailout is not necessary to US auto restructuring. It is wrong to assume that the only way to incentivize the US automotive giants to reform is by withholding a federal bailout or low-interest loan program. Even with a bailout, they will need to reform to survive in the long-run. And, the US government can use a bailout to force the autos to reform.","Resolve: The federal government should substancially increase social services for people in poverty. Thanks, Pro. My opponent begins his response by saying the reason he mentioned increases in punishment for people who commit fraud against Medicaid is to avoid people committing these crimes to begin with. He writes, \"if we punish those for this crime then less people will do it.\" However notice that this does nothing, as I said last round, to support the resolution - INCREASING SOCIAL SERVICES. Indeed increasing penalties might be a good deterrent to stop people from hurting the system the way they do now, but how is this in any way, shape or form an incentive to increase funding to expand programs? It simply notes that we can take measures to help the system; it doesn't explain why this measure is a reason to increase services. Next, Pro writes that some people go to college and become social workers or other low-income professionals who will not be able to afford paying back their loans. While this is true and indeed sad, Pro ignores other methods to reduce the cost of tuition at universities to begin with -- such as increasing competition by giving out LESS government loans and grants. Obviously if people could not afford college, the prices must be reduced for the institution to remain afloat, meaning there are smarter, more practical and fair ways for people to be able to afford college rather than force others to subsidize their education. Pro never responded to my questions specifically regarding why it should be acceptable to take money from your peers without giving it back, which is theft. I gave other ideas in the last round to help people pay for college as well. Also, I reject the idea that community college serves no purpose, and I ask that my opponent defend this so I can refute it in the next round. Finally, Pro clarifies why he suggested increasing minimum wage, but I explained in the last round why this is a bad idea and disadvantageous to low-skilled workers. Pro never responded to one iota of this argument. Pro also never responded to any of my other arguments, including the USFG being insufficient to take over what private business could; that his suggestions infringe on the labor market and opportunities for profit; that increased interest rates would severely negatively impact the overall economy; etc. Please extend all of these arguments. Thank you.","Trump made his money through bankruptcy Trump uses the chapter laws as stated: Chapter 7: stops all operations and liquidate company's assets. Chapter 11: reorganize a company. Chapter 13: Plan to repay debt. He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws and as his reputation of a presidential candidate and a billionaire. Regardless if he loses the money he gets from his father, 40 million, he'll still be a billionaire. Trump has good credit, but his organization has bad credit. Explain to me why he'll lose a few billions if he lose 40 million?","Moral hazard If debt is forgiven is that not just encouraging the borrower to keep on borrowing rather than changing his ways? If debt is forgiven then a borrower may expect that if they get into such dire straits again they will simply have their debts forgiven again. This then would mean the creditor paying over and over again for the debtor's profligacy. The periphery states have to get their books in order rather than expecting the core states to always pick up the tab for them.","Direct financial aid is better than pre-defined programs (continued) Poverty doesn’t make everyone want, or for that matter, need the same things. And it is extremely offensive for Prop. to assume so. Prop. claims that providing financial aid to the poor will be degrading for them. However wouldn’t it be more degrading for them to stand in line in a soup kitchen waiting to get the can of soup that every other poor people is drinking? People stand at different levels of poverty, due to different causes and require different solutions for their predicaments. General programs that provide each and every poor with the same food, the same clothes not only ignore such difference, but embody the idea that all poor are equally poor. It denies the fact that the poor are also individuals. Thus it promotes a defeatist attitude among the poor and is in fact much more degrading than providing direct financial aid. Pre-defined programs are not only morally degrading but also inefficient. As mentioned above people stand at different levels of poverty and require different things to help their situation. A blanket provision of same goods and same programs disregards such difference and therefore fail to achieve optimal results. Prop. has mentioned the example of a wheelchair. However what if a person doesn’t need a wheelchair? What if that person is able to get around with just crutches but needs a coat to wear? If the person was given the sum for the wheelchair, instead of the wheelchair itself, he could have bought both the crutches and the coat and achieved a more optimal result for the same cost. This is the crucial difference btw. Financial aid and service provision. Financial aid allows the tailoring of aid to the individual needs of the poor. Such flexible useage minimizes the waste of gov. resources on goods that some might find useless while leading to optimal results by making the people who best know about the recipeints-the poor themselvs-choose its utilization.","Governments should deficit spend in a recesion 1) Subprime mortgages and Greek treasury bills were also recently regarded as very low risk...I know markets can be wrong...but it does not follow that just because markets can be wrong that US T-bills are risky. And, subprime morgages (meaning more risky than prime) and greek t-tbills are regarded as more risky than usa treasury bills. 2) Correct. But the debt to GDP ratio has more than tripled over the last thirty years. It has in the usa, but even so the usa has reduced their debt that got the out of the great depression. (1) Canada has reduced their debt burden through the 1960s and 1990s into the 2000s. (2) Australia also has decreased their debt burden throughout the late 90s. It seems my opponent is wrong when he stated that in virtually all countries the debt is always going up. At leat he was wrong about the debt burden going up.(3) Where did you get those numbers?If you follow the link I gace, you will see the numbers from the federal budget. But, the numbers refer to public debt. That is why there is a difference. The numbers I showed still make my point that the debt burden is reduced by governments.As I have stated recesions are terrible things. They are unfair, cause hardship, damage to people and damage to the future economy. However, if the government steps in and spends (because no one else will, that is why there is a recesion), they can end the recesion. Demand will increase and unused factories/equiptment will be used and unemplyed people will be unemployed. The unemployment rate does not plumet not caused because everyone becomes stupid/lazy, it plummets because everyone is scared to spend. I do not believe countries should spend forever. They become fiscally responsible when the recesionis up. But during a recesion countries should spend, grow GDP and end the recesion. (1) http://news.nationalpost.com...(2) http://www.afr.com...","If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a “domino effect” on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans – such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.","The United States National Debt is the Amount of Money the United States has Created not Borrowed Thanks for the debate akphidelt Try not to call your opponent an idiot next time - it's rude. ==Can the government simply create money? == Yes. My opponent is smart enough to know how they can do this. The Fed can \"create\" money and increase the money supply by changing the Fed Funds Rate (the interest rate that they lend to banks) or by changing the Reserve Requirement. Both of these increase the money supply and allow banks to \"create\" more money on their balance sheets, by giving out more loans, without having to accept more deposits. They can also print money (my opponent never says what law requires them not to). ==Can the government pay down the debt== My opponent has successfully proven that Clinton's entire surplus came from Social Security revenue, which by law, must be invested in Treasuries (because otherwise, if it just sits there, inflation decreases its value, so it needs a safe rate of return). However, Clinton's way of saving money is not the only way. We could privatize Social Security (20% of our budget) or cut military spending and use that money to pay down the debt. This is the core of the Paul Ryan plan - to cut Medicare and Social Security, however the Democrats put huge defense cuts in the debt ceiling bill. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be proven - that the government can pay off the debt if it wants to. If you believe I won this point, I win the whole debate, since my opponent believes that if we paid off our debts, money would just start randomly vanishing out of the economy. This is not true. The money would leave our economy only if the person owning the Treasury bond lived in another country and the money doesn't just vanish either - it still exists. ==Greece== My opponent's only real response to this is arrogance. I know that since Greece doesn't control the central bank, it cannot devalue the currency like it would like to in order to pay off its debt, while the US can use inflation to pay off our debts (although it's not a good option because it leads to a death spiral of markets reacting badly, forcing more inflation and ultimately hyperinflation). My point here was merely that investors wouldn't be worrying about either Greece or the United States' ability to pay them back if borrowing money just created new money, rather than creating debts. We do owe the money to people, otherwise the S&P downgrade of our debt wouldn't be a big deal. Once again, my opponent creates a red herring and doesn't respond to the main argument: we \"borrowed\" because we owe the money to someone. My opponent says, \"==The government can OBVIOUSLY create money without issuing debt. == This is not true otherwise they would do it. Which is why all these shenanigans have to take place for them to create money. \" Lol. The government takes on debt because it needs to borrow money to pay its bills (which is why we needed the debt ceiling raised). If it JUST wants to create money, say, to increase the money supply, it changes the Fed Funds Rate. I didn't realize until NOW that my opponent seriously believed there was NO OTHER WAY to create money. He keeps waffling on his advocacy in this debate - backing off extreme statements, then remaking them. ==Clinton== Lol. He now says, \"There is no dollar in existence that is not backed by debt. \" I thought he was using the billions in gold to show that nearly half our money supply is backed by gold. If there is no dollar in existence not backed by debt, then there must not have been money before debt existed. Look to 1980 - how was the number of dollars in circulation nearly TWICE what the debt was? Answer: because debt is NOT the only mechanism used to create money, it is just the one the government uses when they need it, and they are not really \"creating and NOT borrowing\" money; they are creating money on a balance sheet, the same way that the bank does when you BORROW money. Creating money, in this sense, should mean printing money, since that is the only way the government can create money without borrowing it and owing it to someone. ==M2 does not include loans== My opponent is just sketchy. Read wikipedia. M2 includes notes and currency, traveler's check, demand deposits, other deposits, time deposits, and large time deposits. There's even a chart. Nowhere does it say loans. My opponent seems so sure of himself that he probably didn't bother reading his own source. M2 does not include loans, which means that it's pretty telling that the total amount of money in circulation is not even close to our debt number. 9 does not equal 14.5. ==Warren Buffet== Appeal to authority. And the S&P downgrade was to show that people are worried if we can pay them back, showing that debt is \"borrowed. \" Buffet even says we can pay off our debt, supposedly something my opponent denies. ==Why do we need primary dealers? == My opponent claims to create money. However, firstly, if this was the case, why do we even allow 30% to directly purchase, since this doesn't create money. Why not require all purchases to go through primary dealers? Because that 30% matches the 30% of debt purchased by foreign central banks. The other 70% is bought by small investors, mostly in the US. When the government needs to sell debt QUICKLY (like right after the debt ceiling raise, when they had less than 24 hours to pay our bills), they need money fast and don't want to wait on small time investors to bid at auction, so they require a bank to purchase the T-bond, and then flip around and sell the T-bond. However, cash is paid for the Treasury bond at the end point, meaning money is TEMPORARILY created by the bank to pay for the T-bond, but that created money is then erased off their balance sheets when someone gives them real money for it, hence the money is borrowed and owed to than investor. My opponent asks this question: \"why would a country that has it's own made up currency need to borrow it's own made up currency? \" Simple, same reason they need to tax us. They can make up more of the currency in OTHER ways, but this causes inflation because money markets aren't stupid. My opponent next lists 4 things I'm supposedly wrong about. This is petty, especially since he was wrong about M2, he was caught with his pants down double and triple counting when he was doing his math (so if there is a real ethical violation here, it's him), 2 of the other points I'm also not wrong about, if you take my arguments back IN context, and the last (Clinton) I'm still right about since my opponent said, during his little sketchy calculation, that intragovernmental debt should be excluded from our debt calculations, since no ones worries about the government's ability to pay ITSELF back, so technically Clinton reduced the debt we do care about. Dropped Voters. Vote Con if you agree that: 3) You believe the government can pay off its debt whenever it chooses to, without shrinking the amount of money in circulation. 4) You believe that Treasuries are sold for cash at the END POINT. Cash is traded for Treasuries, ultimately, and we use that cash to deficit spend (example, China buying our debt). 6) You believe that the Fed doesn't even need to issue debt to print money. It could just use a printing press or change the Fed Funds Rate, which is the whole point of the floating currency. The government can OBVIOUSLY create money without issuing debt. Other voters: money supply doesn't match debt - 9 doesn't equal 14.5; we obviously owe money to China, so we did \"borrow\"; QE2 did not force banks to lend more money, so debt purchases by the Fed FAILED to increase the money supply, in spite of that actually being the goal of their policy for once (they couldn't change the Fed Funds Rate since it was already near zero). My opponent says he learned nothing from this debate - probably because he refused to believe I could be right about even something so simple as defining M2, in spite of having a degree in Economics. Arrogance. .","debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt","The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed In the United States, just about anything you need or want -- getting a higher education, getting hired for a job or renting a place to stay -- is hinged on your credit score. I believe this is abusive, that it unjustly penalizes people for having medical problems or those who attempt higher education (especially if the institution of higher learning fails to provide anything beneficial to a person) and that the use of a credit score for hiring for a job, obtaining a utility service such as a mobile phone, or entering into a rental or lease agreement should be banned because they cause unjust harm and prevent good people from being able to live above the poverty line. Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example). I will let CON make the opening argument, and use this round solely to define the argument. Thank you for accepting my challenge and participating in this debate!","Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...","If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as “moral hazard”; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.","Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy. Side proposition assumes that the European and American economies will eventually improve to the point where the legal sector will begin to grow again. If it does not you may find just as hard to find a job as when you entered Law School. Furthermore, there is a good chance that you will be in significant debt by the time you have completed your law degree, which will have a major impact on your ability to seek flexible employment within the legal field. It is quite possible that you may be forced to forgo politics or public interest law in favour of higher paying positions in less desirable fields. And if you decide to pursue options outside of the legal field, it is hard to see how there weren’t cheaper ways to spend three years, since going to Law School actively requires you to pay people to keep you unemployed. Even if you have received scholarships or training contracts, your options may be limited by the conditions of those offers (mandatory public service, work for a specific firm) which will also inhibit your freedom.","Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay If the dropping of the debts was announced then the countries would immediately take out new loans that they couldn’t repay, knowing that the debt would be dropped. They may also start defaulting on loan repayments until the debts were dropped.","Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts The idea that this is only an illusionary loss of money for the creditor is wrong. When they hold others debts they have an asset that will be recovered in the future and they are also gaining from the interest on those loans. In practice forgiveness then is transferring debt from the peripheral countries balance sheet to the core countries who then may themselves take a knock from the markets as a result of having much higher debt to GDP.","A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education For my first argument, I belief that we Better the Lives of Drug Users through financial aid instead of higher education. the reason been that many of the drug users are already educated and cannot stop so providing them with more money is only a waste of our resources. according to a Harvard survey, 75% of drug users, use drugs to relief their financial needs and problems. it is said that illegal drugs calms ones senses and soul down. another Harvard survey, shows that 85% of drug users are aware of the drugs effect but simply can't stop. you can't expect drug users to stop using drugs unless they want to and 4 out of 5 drug users probably does not want to quit using drugs. my opponent mentions that student are been blocked there access to a full education whereas a student convicted of illegal drug use can still get a full education. we must see that many have changed since 1998 and the citizens of the united states, are more aware of their rights as citizens. The federal government has no right to discriminate these people by providing them with a separate curriculum. it is also unfair to the students who are not convicted of drug usage because it creates an unfair opportunities to the kids who are convicted of drug usage. Enforcing a better education also means giving them a harder standardized text which would increase there stress and prohibit them from coping with life challenges. we could see that enforcing this law will not only be unicycle but will discourage them from getting a good education and quieting drug usage.","Free College Tuition (1) Free college would be too expensive. (1a) Fiscally speaking, free college would be a burden to bear for all American taxpayers. In fact, estimates and economical calculations have come to conclude that student loan debt relief would cost the federal government $22 billion alone. A staunch supporter of the idea of free college, Bernie Sanders, seems to have convinced many young students that his economic policies are stable. But it is quite the contrary. Sanders' plans are estimated to raise the debt ceiling to $36.9 trillion over a span of ten years. (2) Free college is immoral. (2a) It may seem ironic that giving American students free college is ironic, but it really is not when broken down. Simply put: stealing the money of a working American who *earned* their money just to distribute it to a subsidized education system that is barely affordable to the government is heinous and incredibly rights-infringing. Why should the average American taxpayer have to risk not only their own -- but their whole country's -- financial and economic stability so some American college students can go to school free of debt and burden? (2b) Free college would give more of a sense of entitlement to the many already entitled millennials who use college campuses to create 'safe zone' bubbles of Cultural Marxism and political/economic ignorance. There is reason to believe that by expanding on free college, many millions of these free college liberals would continue flooding dorms and obscuring the First Amendment rights of students and guest speakers. SOURCES CITED (1a) . http://www.politico.com... . https://consumerist.com... (2b) . http://www.usnews.com... . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.breitbart.com...","A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education WHEREAS a law passed in 1998 states that anyone convicted of a drug crime is banned from receiving financial aid for college, and WHEREAS blocking access to education does not solve the problem of illegal drug use, and WHEREAS students should not be penalized twice for their mistakes, and WHEREAS withholding financial aid does nothing to help students with drug abuse problems, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress here assembled to eliminate all prohibitions on federal financial aid for persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. You Start!","Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ... There is no doubt that poverty is a serious issue in the world today and that a solution is needed. Debt relief, however, has so far proven to be fairly inefficient in terms of getting countries back on the road to development. In fact, most countries whose debt has been forgiven have not managed to escape the cycle of poverty. Debt relief alone will not be a solution in desperate situations where corruption, totalitarian governments and criminal gangs rule. It is better when natural disasters occur to provide short-term humanitarian assistance in the form of emergency supplies, specialist teams and money for rebuilding. Unlike debt relief, such aid can be focused on areas in real need and monitored to ensure it reaches those suffering in the disaster zone.","Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Chapter 11-style provisions encourage sensible corporate planning. Chapter 11 is discretionary and t...","College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. \"Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,\". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.","The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round. Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round. Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round. Neg: C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly. P1: First, my opponent makes \"the corporations\" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer. Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is \"forced\" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero. Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place. Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from. Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way. However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter. P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school. P3 Flipside: I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such… If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners… Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed. C2: \"If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record.\" 1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1. 2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: \"because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people\". A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright. \"The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a \"guilty until proven innocent\" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap\" 1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen…) 2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full. C3: \"Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse\" 1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall. 2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the \"innocent until proven guilty\" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall. 3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job. 4.) Landlady: Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well. 5.) More Harms: By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral. AFF CASE: 1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden. Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be \"unfair\" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win. 2.) Ban V change the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other \"scores\" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it. all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements. In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of","Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by its previously incurred debts. For example, bad management, high interest rates or high research and development costs may mean that a company which otherwise produces positive cash flow ends up saddled with debt obligations which it cannot meet. It seems to be a waste to force the company to stop trading just because of the debt, especially if this does not make it much more likely that the debt will be repaid in any case. A Chapter-11 style approach would allow the company to keep on trading by releasing it from some of its historically incurred obligations.","Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board. First off, while I did mean that cutting across the board, i. e. . 5% of Federal funding from all programs, was what I meant in the resolution, since I did not state it I apologize. Unfortunately, your idea is simply a mix of both of the debt solutions listed in the resolution, and therefore not relevant to this debate. I'm going to first contradict my opponents arguments and then move on to my own. ^^^There are two problems with Pro's contentions. The first is that it is politically impossible for most if not al of the programs Pro mentioned to be eliminated. The political winds simply have not shifted that far to allow entire departments to be cut, especially when those departments are the ONDP, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education. While I do agree that these should be completely cut, it simple cannot happen. --- Nothing is impossible my friend. Our debt is steadily climbing, and though there are a few devout supporters for every program or department, when survival becomes an issue even the worst of enemies can work together to remain intact. It may seem politically impossible, but when the situation arises, I'm sure that more people will be for cutting these programs out completely than for keeping them intact, or even taking our a significant percentage. ^^^The second problem is that Pro's cuts don't go far enough. There is not a single government program or agency that does not have waste. But the real problem is the entitlement programs. Social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Pro did not even bother to mention these. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the insane amount of money the department of defense receives. --- I did not list those entitlement programs and the Dept. of Defense for one key reason: America depends on these programs. Though it would be ideal for America to simply shut down Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, many millions of people depend on this programs for survival. 10.6 million Americans depend on Social security alone to survive. What would happen if Social Security was cut? Would they be thrown out on the streets, left to die starving, sick, and cold? No, America depends on these programs to continue to provide Americans with the help they need. Also, in relation to the Dept. of Defense, I did not include that in the programs to cut out because America depends on its military to survive. Sure, we spend a lot of money on weapons, supplies, and military technologies, but these things are necessary to keep America's hegemony intact, and thus protecting ourselves from any foriegn, and sometimes domestic, threat. If the DoD's funding were to be cut, America could lose its power and protection, allowing for many to die. . http://www.usatoday.com... ^^^Without cuts in these monstrous programs, nothing will change. ---I agree in the fact that these programs are huge and constitute for a large portion of our spending, but things can still change. By cutting out all unecessary programs completly, we are face with a situtation where over a period of time America can get back on its feet and continue to be a world leader. I urge the voters to realize this fact, and vote Pro. Now on to my points: Since I answered my opponents case and showed why Pro was right, I'll just extend my previous evidence. Contention 1: Usefulness Many of the Federal programs that have been discussed have not provided any real benefit for Americans. The U. S. Botanic Garden does not provide any real benefit to the American people, except to look pretty. This program could easily be cut, and save the Federal government more than $7 million a year. Also, the African Development Program is throwing money at a problem that could easily be solved with long-term investment. This action could save the U. S. millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in a short period of time. Contention 2: Money Drain By not providing any real benefit to America, many programs need to be cut completyl and cease to be money drains. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is another example of a such money drain, constantly taking money and using it to fund a program that is not needed any longer. In a faltering economy, every little bit helps, and money drains suck away money that could be better used for other things. My oponent has yet to really create his own arguments. Instead, he is simply refuting mine and trying to compose arguments out of this. In conclusion, I urge voters to vote Pro for al the reasons provided. Cutting deep into certain programs is the only way for America to remain a world power and to provide for Americans everywhere.","High School Diploma There is a man named bob. Bob is in high school and is failing several classes. One day, he decides to drop out, so he does. After he drops out, bob creates a plumbing business and loves every day of it. In his first year, he makes $50,000 fixing pipes in peoples homes. Bob also has a friend names Roy, who didn\"t drop out of high school. Roy does great in school and graduates with flying colors. Eventually, Roy goes to collage so he will get a high paying white-collar job. After Roy graduates collage with flying colors, he is unable to find employment anywhere because all of the white-collar jobs have been taken. So now Roy is homeless and is $30,000 in debt, which he can\"t pay. Roy can\"t get a blue-collar job because he doesn\"t know how to do anything but white-collar stuff. Eventually, Bob hires Roy for $12 an hour and Roy manages to pay off his debt. My argument is to prove that people don\"t need a fancy high school diploma to be successful in life. The Goal is that getting a high school Diploma shouldn\"t mandatory. While high school is not mandatory, People are strongly urged to stay in school and graduate. The contentions are the following. Fewer resources will be used in teaching- the core requirements taught in high school aren\"t usually needed, especially for lower skilled, blue-collar employment. Those that do need it are the white-collar jobs. Therefore, the system is creating economic waste by mandating a service that doesn\"t benefit to the majority of people. If getting a high school diploma wasn\"t mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering the price of education, and the extra money could be spent on things that need extra cash, such as improving infrastructure, extra cash to get rid of debt, and tax breaks.","Reducing the defecit should be the United States primary economic concern What do you define as \"idealistic\"? In response to my opponent's questions: 1.) \"I would like for you to point out instances in American history where we were prevented from doing something because of this mounting debt?\" Well, the answer is quite simply never. However, never in American history has the United States Federal Government debt been so massive. So this question is flawed, for it does not take into account that fact. 2.) Yes. 3.) The resolution does not ask to solve for deficit spending--it only asks to provide a rationale as to why the United States government should reduce the deficit. This question is irrelevant. 4.) I am not aware of any such circumstances, however your question is biased. From an objective point of view it would be absurd to limit the bankruptcy of a country on the premise you have set because the fact still exists--Greece, a sovereign nation, is bankrupt and requires a bail out from the EU. The circumstances are relevant only insofar as the fact that Greece has failed economically. 5.) I did not disagree with this statement, I was pointing out that speaking in absolutes is ineffective and incorrect. Your arguments were based on absolute statements. My opponent's case: Contention I: Either the United States Federal Government or Banks must start lending. My opponent then states \"if the Government does not use deficit spending to bail out major corporations such as AIG, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and several major banks...economic experts say that 'our imaginations can't even begin to fathom the shape of our economy.'\" First of all, the government already has commenced the bail out, so deficit spending has already taken place with regard to the most recent economic recession. If this did not happen, the banks would have failed and this country would have experienced a depression worse than the Great Depression of the 1930's. But why did the bail out have to occur? Why did deficit spending have to happen in order to save our economy? It was because of Moral Hazard, the fact that the senior management of large lending corporations, such as AIG, Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, were able to take large risks and not face the consequences of their actions. Companies gave out loans to toxic assets, made huge amounts of money and created the housing bubble which burst after certain policies by the Fed were instituted. In essence, the most recent economic recession occurred because of flawed government policies and banks giving out loans. If that put the United States into a recession then why should banks start lending again? But that still leaves the government. I asked my opponent if he feels deficit spending is mandatory for economic growth and he responded it was not, and that deficit spending was necessary depending only on the situation. As in the case of the most recent economic recession, deficit spending was mandatory to save the economy. But now the mounting debt is continuing to increase because of the interests of the few, not many. And my opponent conceded to the fact that the interests of few does not represent the interest of many. Refer to my Contention I. Contention II: The public debt simply increases from one year to the next. I do not see how this contention is relevant to the resolution, because the resolution does not ask to argue about the public debt. It states the \"deficit\" and \"United States primary economic concern.\" This means that the United States Federal Government should focus on reducing the mounting deficit. The private sector is wholly different from this. My opponents second contention will need some explanation if it is to be considered any further in the debate round. My case: Contention III Stands. Contention II: \"Unfortunately, we're now running annual deficits at a level where deficits very much do matter — as the ongoing crisis in Greece so vividly illustrates. The Congressional Budget Office says that after borrowing nearly 10 percent of GDP in 2009, we will borrow even more in 2010, and just a little less in 2011. Thereafter, we're expected to cut our deficits — but they'll still be 4 to 5 percent, which is bigger than anything we saw under George W. Bush and bigger than all but two of the deficits tallied under Reagan. The bills for Medicare and Social Security are finally coming due as the obligations exceed payroll-tax receipts. And this administration, like every administration before it, is unwilling to either make the necessary cuts or raise the necessary taxes. Deficits are starting to matter. A lot. Both politically and economically.\" [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. \"'We can't just grow, we can't inflate, we can't cut or tax our way out of the problem. Everything has to be on the table,' said David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office and now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation...\" [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. Yet Obama, like many G20 leaders, is on tough political terrain. Faced with voter anxiety about a weak economy and unemployment near 10%, he has asked Congress for more stimulus money to spark stronger growth. That spending, however, could complicate his administration's longer-term efforts to reduce a $1.5 trillion deficit, which has fueled voter anger, symbolized by the Tea Party movement. \"That's the grand tension of the G20 nations: How do you restore growth while cutting the deficits that can prove very self-defeating?\" says Kati Suominen of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. \"This is the fine balancing act. And there are no easy answers.\" [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. Contention I Stands. Now, it does, at least.","Debt deal avoids a disastrous default. \"NECESSARY - AND BAD.\" Milwauke Journal Sentinel Editorial. August 2nd, 2011: \"The deal does allow the nation to dodge a calamitous default - which alone makes it worth supporting. Given the stakes for the economy, we think the decision of some lawmakers to withhold support to be a serious error in judgment.\"","Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) \"Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful.\"OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. \"First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things.\"I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a \"pre-paid\" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. \"It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring.\" If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. \"Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit.\"Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?\"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you.\"LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment.\"If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank.\"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\"Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects.\"I didn't cheat anybody. I \"borrowed\" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.","Chapter 11 bankruptcy will help autos restructure and regroup. \"Saving Detroit\". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"The United States created Chapter 11 precisely to help companies that need protection from their creditors while they restructure their liabilities and winnow out the good business from the bad. If the North American businesses of GM and Ford filed for Chapter 11, their activities elsewhere would be largely unaffected. Even in North America, their businesses could continue to make vehicles as they shed costs and renegotiated contracts.\"","Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poor countries to spend their revenues unwisely in the expectation that creditor nations will wipe out their debts if they get into trouble. Debt relief for countries affected by natural disasters is different, as by their very nature such events are unpredictable and cannot be planned for. Instead the possibility of such assistance in the event of an earthquake, tidal wave, or other disaster makes it more possible for developing states to plan ahead and invest wisely for the future.","Direct financial aid is better than pre-defined programs We have 3 reasons for such belief: 1. Financial aid fosters economic autonomy; 2. is less morally degrading; 3.better serves diverse individual needs and therefore is more efficient Let’s start with the first reason. Problem with pre-defined programs is that they leave no room for independent decisions of the recipients. The recipients are forced to accept what they are given regardless of their individual preferences or needs. For a person to become economically independent, he has to learn to manage his income. Financial aid is conducive to such independency because it only provides the raw material (money) which the recipient then has to figure out how to use it. While there may be mistakes, it is through such trial and error that people learn. In contrast, if gov. provides pre-defined goods it will only result in the poor becoming ever more dependent on gov. Financial aid is also linked to encouragement of entrepreneurship. Many people often have ideas to form their own income source (private businesses, farming etc.) but fail to do so b.c. of lack of seed money. Financial aid will esp. be helpful in such cases. Difference btw. Prop. and Opp. is one side advocates for expenditure while the other supports investment. The money spent providing food and clothes are pure expenditures, nothing comes out of them and the costs can never be recovered. However, if we provide direct financial aid so that poor develop economic autonomy and grow out of poverty, then the money spent are investments with worthy results. For financial aid to achieve such success there will have to be strict criteria that allow gov. to select those who have both the economic motive and capability to pull themselves out of poverty. While this debate does not call for a specific policy model, conditions such as personal record that indicate active search for job, submission of financial plan that outline how the money will be used could be used to further validate the process.","Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has \"skyrocketed\" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that \"federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition.\" PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because \"more Americans have sought education\" tuition prices are \"higher.\" So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that \"colleges and universities\" set tuition \"high enough to capture... funds\" wherever they \"can be extracted from parents.\" So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that \"federal student loans\" have harmed students.\" PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round.","Resolved: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just Like most people opposing recent government bailouts, Thomas Jefferson is turning over in his grave right now. It was Jefferson who said, \"The government which governs best governs least.\" Because I agree that small government means big prosperity, I must negate today's resolution which states: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just. The most paramount Value in today's round is that of: American Prosperity, defined as American's living in, or working to achieve a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition The Criterion which I will use to uphold my value is that of: Justice, defined as the administering of deserved punishment or reward. [www.dictionary.com] Justice is essential to American Prosperity because without the corporations receiving the punishment that they deserve, there is no way for Americans to prosper because the government will put our country into so much debt that there is no room for American's to prosper Definitions are available upon request: [on definitions page] OBSERVATION 1: the term bailout is a misnomer. Since congress is giving money to private corporations in exchange for stake in the company, meticulous oversight into its business, and regulatory control, the proper term is \"not bailout\" but \"buy into\". 1: BAILING OUT BANKRUPT COMPANIES THAT HAVE ACTED RECKLESSLY WILL ONLY CONTINUE SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE. (A) Government funding of private enterprise is always bad for the consumers. New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson asked \"What are the consequences of a world in which regulators rescue even the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed helped create the titanic mess we are in?\" (B) Bailouts set a dangerous precedent which will lead to the destruction of American Prosperity Hedge fund manager Bill Fleckenstein wrote over the past several decades, \"Bailouts became bigger and bigger—as the feds tried to solve the problems created by too much easy money with more easy money.\" I have one simple question: Where does it end? (Pause) The government buys control of AIG, GM, Bear Sterns, Chase Bank, etc…etc…Where does it end? 2: There were other options that would have better allowed for the prosperity of America. (A) Chapter 11 bankruptcy was an alternate lifeline. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a form of bankruptcy reorganization available to individuals, corporations and partnerships. It has no limits on the amount of debt. It is the usual choice for large businesses seeking to restructure their debt. The debtor usually remains in possession of its assets, and operates the business under the supervision of the court and for the benefit of creditors. The debtor in possession is a fiduciary (a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.) for the creditors. If the debtor's management is ineffective or less than honest, a trustee (The person who manages assets owned by a trust under the terms of the trust document. A trustee's purpose is to safeguard the trust and distribute trust income or principal as directed in the trust document.) may be appointed. The simple fact is that the government didn't completely consider all of it's options when selecting bailouts as a method of \"problem solving.\" Chapter 11 would have allowed for companies to have their debt reconstructed, which would have allowed for better money management in the future. 3: BAILOUTS ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT. (A) Government buying into private business violates the constitutional principle of \"limited government\" Thomas Jefferson said, \"The government is best which governs least.\" The founding fathers of this country believed deeply that government was a necessary evil that should only perform certain limited functions such as maintaining a standing army and build interstate highways. They also believed very strongly that government should not perform functions for which it was not suited, namely—running a business. Because those in government power are inherently prone to corruption, inefficiency, and tyranny, the constitution writers put strict limitations on government, so call checks and balances. But, the bailouts are nothing more than foul expansion of government power way beyond what the founders envisioned. Lastly, just think of the government owned economy of the old Soviet Union and you will get a picture of where this is all heading. Do we really want to emulate and try to duplicate the economies of North Korea, and Cuba? Mohamed El-Erian, of the world's largest bond investor, PIMCO, says bailouts\" critically undermine the sanctity of contracts and, at the very minimum, leads to a persistent increase in the risk premiums that lenders impose on all borrowers. In addition, there may be unintended consequences that erode the integrity of the market system.\"","studying is not the only way to get rich Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes. I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind. Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a \"general fact.\" I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news. Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don\"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect). More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go. Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words. Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. \"In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!\" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where \"Up to Our Eyeballs\" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch. I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house. Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as \"(47-68) years old?\" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this. You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word. In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say \"underemployed\" as opposed to \"unemployed\" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my \"funny question\" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to. The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them. In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they \"most likely\" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree. Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take \"a life time [sic] to clear if lucky.\" College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees. To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though. Sources: (1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2)http://temple-news.com... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk... (near the bottom, under Self-harm) (4)http://www.nydailynews.com...","There is no better alternative for society than debt free currency I must tell you that because you did not use a spell checker or grammar scan it has been extremely difficult to interpret your thought processes and especially since you use a syntactical style that is, as best that I can determine, shorthand for what you are thinking. For example:\"This is true. But replacing the current currency with debt free currency will, as described...\" As described? Where? By whom? Anyway. Under your...item #1) These assertions (..create much more inflation....even hyperinflation and economic collapse) are wrong on their face. You have not stipulated the conditions under which your conclusions obtain. The Treasury could do the following and not create inflationary expectations, hyperinflation or economic collapse: For example, the U.S. owes the rest of the world $20 trillion held in bonds and other debt instruments. The Government decides to liquidate this federal debt by printing $20 trillion in debt free currency. That cash monetizes the debt. The Treasury then takes the 20 trillion in interest bearing instruments and liquidates them. Where's the inflation? There is none. (Moreover, I do not agree with any of your unsupported assertions, conclusions.) Current policy allows the Fed to reissue these debt instruments even after monetization, ergo, inflation. Now creditors have the $20 trillion in cash and Treasury and the Fed can reissue the $20 trillion in debt instruments. You state, \"But the argument is not that debt free currency is better than the system used before the civil war, the discussion is if it's the bets *possible* system. And it clearly is not, as the current system we use now, of fiat money, is superior to debt free currency.\" You make this assertion as if it were obvious on its face. It is not. Above is an example of why it is not. Here are more reasons why debt free currency is far superior to the current system of interest money: If the current system is better, then some one needs to explain to Americans why it does not resolve the following: -- insurmountable debt? -- severe fiscal constraint in the provision of public services and programs? -- rampant unemployment? -- billions of dollars in resources sitting idle and/or going bankrupt because private banks won't lend? Issuing debt free currency instantly resolves all of these issues, especially the liquidity issue within our State and local governments, without adding to national or State and local government debt or deficits. The lack of liquidity was the environment in which Lincoln's debt free Greenbacks rescued the Union. Why do we not see the same happening with debt-money during our extreme lack of liquidity where interbank interest rates are near zero and where commercial rates are extremely favorable? Again, debt free currency can be issued without affecting the rate of inflation. You have ignored a number of critical variables in calculating the impact of debt free money on the supply of money. Namely, whether there are idle resources in the economy, whether the economy is deflating, etc. You state, concerning my example of Japan's situation after the war, \"But I fail to see how it is even relevant to the discussion.\" It's relevancy is that international private banks are a major source of financial instability for governments the world over. They finance speculators who use margins to carry out their attacks on a nations currency. What the banks fear is that debt money will be replaced with debt free money and they loose the profitable business of lending massive amounts of money to speculators. The potential of that loss drives banks to constrain the \"offending\" government. (Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money), p. 500-600. You said, \"You think that just because there is no debt, the state can simply print money to pay for whatever the state wants to pay for.\" I presented an argument not what I believe. Nonetheless, it is true, the state can print money for whatever it wants. Japan has done it. Russia and China do it. The isle of Guernsey does it. The State of N. Dakota creates its funding requirements through its State Bank. A system that all States should adopt, especially those in the grip of insolvency. You raise the issue of Zimbabwe's hyperinflation. Let's review the history, in brief: Zimbabwe is a dramatic contemporary example of runaway inflation. The crisis dated back to 2001, when Zimbabwe defaulted on its loans and the IMF refused to make the usual accommodations, including refinancing and loan forgiveness. Apparently, the IMF's intention was to punish the country for political policies of which it disapproved, including land reform measures that involved reclaiming the lands of wealthy landowners. Zimbabwe's credit was ruined and it could not get loans elsewhere, so the government resorted to issuing its own national currency and using the money to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign-exchange market. These dollars were then used to pay the IMF and regain the country's credit rating. Hyperinflation was caused by speculators who manipulated the foreign-exchange market, charging exorbitant rates for U.S. dollars, causing a drastic devaluation of Zimbabwe's currency. The government's real mistake, however, may have been in playing the IMF's game at all. Rather than using its national currency to buy foreign fiat money to pay foreign lenders, it could have followed the lead of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists and issued its own currency to pay for the production of goods and services for its own people. Inflation would then have been avoided, because supply would have kept up with demand; and the currency would have served the local economy rather than being siphoned off by speculators. (Stephen Zarlenga, \"The Lost Science of Money\", pp. 579-583.) An accurate explanation of how inflation and hyperinflation obtained is that it begins with a credit crises not the profligate printing of money. The last sentence of your response is a gross misrepresentation of the argument I present. No where do I imply that a \"free lunch\" is in the offing. There are always administrative costs. Other than that there are no real economic or financial costs to the public sector, citizens who benefit from the allocation of debt free currency, or even private sector banks who serve as depositories for holders of debt free funds. Additionally, debt free currency would serve as a major solution in the development of Third World nations. Debt free currency on a global basis would relieve developing countries of annual debt repayments, these severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of millions of children and provided 90 million girls and women with access to basic education. If the money is owed to commercial banks, it was created with accounting entries. Third World debt represents a liability on the banks' books only because the rules of banking say their books must be balanced. To change this banks must be allowed to hold reduced levels of assets equivalent to the Third World Debt bonds they cancel. Alternatively, cancel the debt bonds, yet permit banks to retain them for purposes of accountancy. Third World debt could be eliminated with the click of a mouse. Then these governments could create their own currency, interest free, rather than having to borrow dollars to buy currency from private banks.","Much direct aid is simply recycled as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid fl... Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.\\ However, reducing government aid would have immediate damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’ their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.","Too big to fail is too short minded for longer economic growth. If we look into the longer term economic horizon we see that the subsidisation of an economic entity to necessitate its survival will lead to the peril of that entity. We can look at the disaster of GM, which we are still bailing out because of the governments failure to let the organization fail. [1] Now the automobile manufacturers were the most notable companies to fail, that being said, the larger problem of failure is yet to come. The banking industry which received over an 80% lions share of the bailout have simply written off the federal funding on their balance sheets through manipulation of LIBOR rates and federal borrowing and repayment of aforementioned rates. Unfortunately I have yet to publish my research on this issue so I have no hard data to back this, however the banking industry paid back a menial 31.86% of the federal money borrowed however it states on any research engine that they have fully paid back the debt. This is a huge problem as this will affect the consumers in their buying power and lead to longer recessionary times, as well as place insecure weights on the Federal balance sheet. A metaphor that one can bring to mind when considering this is a person who has lost full function of an appendage due to a cancer. This person is given an antibiotic regiment that will allow some, very limited, functional use of their arm, and this person is only allowed to use their arm how the doctor says they can and not any other way. The person will be plagued with limited functionality at best and will in the end die as cancer is malignant. We cannot let our country fall to the cancer we must remove the appendage before we fall to the malignant, systemic and global problems that the toxic debt holds for us. [1] http://money.cnn.com...","The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan The governments of the debtor countries knew exactly what they were signing up for when the took out the loans! Why should the loans be dropped just because they are struggling to pay? A bank wouldn't drop a customer's debt if they were unable to pay!","Debt Relief following natural disasters Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...","Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school. David Lat. \"In Defense of Going to Law School.\" Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: \"4. Not everyone graduates with debt (or with as much debt as some people think). I was lucky enough to graduate law school debt-free; my parents paid for my college and law school. And I’m not alone. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (figure 7), over 10 percent of law students will graduate with zero debt, and another 5 percent or so will graduate with less than $20,000 in student loans. So somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of law school graduates leave school with little to no debt — and a valuable professional degree to show for their efforts. There are several reasons why perhaps a fifth of law school graduates have little or no debt. Some have parents, grandparents or spouses who are willing to help out with educational costs. Some have savings from pre-law-school careers, in lucrative fields such as finance or consulting. And some attend reasonably priced state schools and/or receive very generous scholarship money. The dean of one top 25 law school told me earlier this year that about two-thirds of his school’s students receive some form of scholarship aid from the school. [...] So the 'sticker price' of law school, in terms of the cost you see on the law school website or in brochures, can be misleading. Many students aren’t paying full freight — and many of the students who are paying full freight can afford to.\"","Being successful in life is easier with a college education. 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;\"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower.\" The source I provided stated;\"An Associate’s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor’s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor’s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor’s degree.\" Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.","Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com...","University Education should not be free The only harm that you have mentioned is that taxes of the country go out to free universities. Response to that below: 1- If the argument is only about taxes being used to fund free university education then please note, this is not really a harm. Eventually, the purpose of taxes is to be spent for the welfare of the country. You have to show that in countries where university education is free, taxes could have been allocated in areas with greater benefit to the society at large than free university education. 2- My argument in favor of free university education is: It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that every citizen rich or poor is provided equal opportunities to be able to pursue a successful life. The benefits of university or higher education are immense.. Economic benefits to society of higher level education include increased tax revenues, faster economic growth, greater innovation and labour market flexibility, while individuals profit from higher earnings, lower unemployment and higher productivity. Costly university education becomes an impediment for the individual and the society at large to be able to reap these benefits. The cost of obtaining a U.S. degree is among the highest in the world and rising, which burdens local and international students with heavy student loans. The average amount of student loan debt again crept up for the Class of 2013, and is approaching $30,000, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success. In its ninth annual report on student loan debt, TICAS found nearly 7 in 10 graduating seniors in 2013 \" 69 percent \" left school with an average of $28,400 in student loan debt, an increase of 2 percent from 2012. But the amount of student debt and the likelihood of graduating with debt varied greatly between both states and colleges. Some states had average debt amounts as low as $18,656, while others topped $30,000. Between different colleges, average debt amounts ranged from $2,500 to $71,000. Government has a responsibility that citizens are empowered with higher education through a free university education system to start giving back to the society. Students must not have the burden of costly debts over their shoulders for years and years after they graduate.","Moral hazard Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?","Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns £10,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business £100,000.","financial stress is part of university life The argument opposite seems to centre around two principal points, the first being that it is fun to be in debt. I don't think anyone except a masochist would agree with that. The second point they seem to be making is that debt teaches self-sufficiency. Which is fair enough, only university fees are so large that they cripple students financially for much of the early part of their working life. There is a difference between undergoing minor hardship to teach carefulness with money and being saddled with crippling debt for years.","Debt of law school limits opportunities Cameron Strachter wrote in the Wall Street Journal: \"Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else.\"[2]","This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.","The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed The rampant abuse of credit scores is a long-overlooked blacklist conspiracy in our society that follows in the footsteps of grave injustices in the name of capitalism: plantation slavery, child labor, segregation and deadly work environments. There's no justice nor fairness, and frequently things such as medical problems supposedly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act have their protections completely stripped by these blacklists. Even if we ignored all the fraud, abuse, inaccuracy and injustice, if we get to the supposed principle of a credit rating as a person's ability to pay off debt, then it should not be used in any circumstances except in determining a person's suitability to obtain a loan. A person's ability to pay loans and their work ethic are very different meters. A person's ability to pay loans is much less in their control than their punctuality and effort in doing a job well, therefore I say there is no link and denying a person employment based on their credit score is unfair, unjust and in opposition to liberty in that it oppresses them and prevents good people from being able to pay off their debts. Worse, a significant portion of debt is medical bills, and using a credit score lowered by medical debt to deny or charge someone a higher rate for rent or other services should be considered a violation of the Americans with Disability Act. Why should businesses be allowed to violate the ADA through a conspiratorial blacklist of private citizens who have trouble paying medical bills? On the flipside, why should a person who got away with embezzlement or profited from overseas slave labor get rewarded for their high credit rating? === COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 1: CREDIT SCORE IS AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR Credit score is NOT a reliable measure of trustworthiness nor foresight. Corporations set both income from employment and expenses in the price of services, private persons have little control over either. It is not justified to punish a person because they were laid off, their rent increased or their lender changed their loan by denying themy opportunity to earn income or get fair prices for products or services they are not taking loans out to purchse. The use of medical debt to deny a person access to anything should be completely forbidden as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Student loans are another abuse; tuition has skyrocketted and educational instutions rake in obscene money from persons just starting out, making it less and less likely a person will be able to pay that debt off. How much bargaining leeway do students have in tuition? How fair is it the burdens of student loan increase while income does not? Why should students get blacklisted from employment to pay back their loans they have trouble paying when the increases in risk of the debts not getting paid are not the students' fault at all? On the flipside, there is no assurance whatsoever that a person of wealth and good credit rating is trustworthy. A lot of corporations have evaded environmental, safety and labor/human rights by shifting operations to nations with little or no such regulations. Mutual funds and stocks (and by extension, those who have ample amounts or at least access to ample amounts of them) benefit greatly by these ill-gotten gains that come at the expense of environmental sustainability, human rights and the economic sustainability of the majority of the members of our society. Why should businesses be allowed to conspire to reward violating laws by punishing the already unfortunate? --- COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 2: CURTAILING CREDIT SCORES IS HYPOCRITICAL If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record. Further, the criminal justice system operates on the principle that it is worse to unjustly harm the innocent than to punish the guilty; the credit score system does not. Only those who commit a crime under their own free will may be found guilty; someone unduly influenced by, say, insanity cannot be found guilty and punished for the crime. A child rapist gets civil protections under criminal justice laws; a person laid off and unable to make payments does not. How is this justified? The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a a \"guilty until proven innocent\" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap. A convicted criminal, by contrast, can pay their debt to society. --- COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 3: CURTAILING CREDIT SCORES IS IMMORAL Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse, it is unfair and unjust to allow employers to use a credit score as an employability factor. Even for a person who did \"bite off more than they could chew\" and deserve low credit scores, their use in determining employment as a determinant of not holding up their side of deals constitutes fraud and conspiracy to prevent the person from being able to repay loans. How many bills can you pay if you are blacklisted from working? Even outside of student and medical debts, most troubles paying debt are from a combination of layoffs and contract terms being changed by corporations with no control by an individual. My landlady's house payments were doubled over just a short time as her loan was sold and re-sold from institution to institution; she was able to keep up with the original payment and terms, but the terms were changed on her without notice and as her minimum payments were doubled, she had more and more difficulty making payments until she finally started falling behind and her home was put in foreclosure. What justification is there for punishing her by making her pay more for things and denying her an opportunity for better employment to pay her bills? This oppresses people and blocks them from equal opportunity and thus must not be allowed to continue. The status quo to continue is an attack on freedom, liberty, equality and justice. Companies will not change this behavior on their own, therefore regulations must be brought to bear on this abusive blacklisting conspiracy. Credit scores are corrupt, wraught with fraud, full of errors and even when they are accurate (far too infrequently), they are still unjust to conspire against people by blacklisting them from employment, housing or other services. Contention 3: Curtailing these scores is IMMORAL A.) Curtailing the use of credit scores has the potential of causing much harm. When companies hire employees, give someone a lease or any similar action, they must, in order to stay in business be assured that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain. People with bad credit ratings have a history of NOT upholding their side of these deals. If these companies were forced to work with these people, they would go out of business, and all the people they were currently helping would be left out to dry. In conclusion, because credit scores are important as an indicator of trustworthiness and because stopping the use of credit score is hypocritical and immoral and unjust, I urge you to vote NEG. (CON) === CLARIFICATIONS: \"If you look to the resolution...\" You points I have refuted. You will need to disprove my rebuttals or make new ones that have some reliable justification to them and establish that the status quo is free from corruption and abuse, fair and just in contrast to the points I have made. \"I'm just not sure what this means…\" By that I meant I was not making an argument in round 1, merely attempting to define the argument. This -- round 2 -- is my opening argument.","Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to... Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.","Bailout deters car buyers as much as bankruptcy would. People have claimed that Americans wouldn't buy from a company that declared bankruptcy. The fact is people are already not buying the cars or there wouldn't be a problem. And how exactly is getting a bailout any different than Chapter 11? Both suggest incompetence.","Yummy debtors for lunch. The professor is only eating off the salary paid to him by the college. The U.S. Department of Education is actually eating off your Indebtedness. The next question you need to ask is \"do I really owe a debt\"? Is there even a debt to begin with? The college loan in brought into existence by your signature on a promissory note, which springs the money into fruition, which pays the school right away. Then the U.S. department of Education then demands that you pay them, with interest from money that they never in fact gave you to begin with. What's your next step? Challenge the validity of the debt. See if there is actually a bilateral contractual obligation that requires you to pay the debt. See, I laugh at all these Bernie Sanders supporters that demand that we have free college. If they understood how our entire phony fiat currency system works, then they might learn that college is already free in a sense. Not to mention all the grant money, pell grant and everything else that the government already subsidizes. We don't need Bernie's socialist plans to further enslave us all. I would put references, but that was all just off the top of my head. If I get an intelligent response to this, then I might be forced to do a tiny bit of research.","Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... We need to keep in mind the fact that the need for debt relief is looked upon as a threat of bankruptcy. This means countries that are desperate enough to seek debt relief after a disaster may in future be seen as bad credit risks, and become unable to receive the loans they need in order to rebuild for the long-term after a natural disaster. It is also unclear what qualifies as a “natural disaster”. Earthquakes, hurricanes and tidal waves may be sudden and unpredictable, but as much or even more damage can be done by disease outbreaks such as AIDS, SARS or Avian ‘Flu, or by famine caused by crop failure. And why do disasters have to be “natural” to justify debt relief? What about countries affected by man-made disasters such as war? Tanzania and Chad have both suffered hugely from coping with massive refugee inflows following violence in neighbouring states (Rwanda and Sudan respectively).","Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality","Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.","Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing \"I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!\" -The words of my opponent. In most eyes, these can be hurtful words, and in most eyes, these are rude words, not accepted in debate. So, I ask voters, just because I forfeited one round, not to award conduct points to my opponent because of his third round/comment. Before I begin, I would also like to apologize for my forfeit. I shouldn't have started this debate, because (1) my opponent obviously does not like me, and (2) finals are upcoming, and I was busy studying, so, naturally, time got away from me and it automatically forfeited. So, my opponent won't have any opportunity to present refutations to my arguments. I will not present refutations to his, therefore making it even. Also, before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent utterly detests me only because of my young age (13), however he does not even state his age, and the one he states is indeed a lie (99). So now, with that aside, I would like to present my main arguments. My opponent has stated that there are only three negative consequences to bankruptcy, however I disagree, and I will prove this throughout my arguments. Argument 1: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit for a minimum . Personal bankruptcy releases you from many debt obligations such as credit cards, however this is shown on the credit reports and drastically lowers your FICO credit score. Not to mention, when bankruptcy is filed, your credit cards are taken away. So, filing bankruptcy means that you're now on a strictly cash spending 'diet', and who uses cash anymore? The majority of people today in the modern world use credit cards. Therefore, personal bankruptcy harms your credit and your spending. Argument 2: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, unreliable, and immoral. When bankruptcy is declared, you have had debts on a number of things, such as a car, a house, a washing machine, dryer, etc. and essentially, you don't pay for it. This is like stealing. You know you can't afford to buy it, yet you purchase it on credit and you don't pay for it, so who then pays for it? The people who pay for it are everyday people like you and me, or the store owner, who has to pay for the person's debt. So when we go to buy it, it's that much more because of the person who declared bankruptcy. Therefore, personal bankruptcy is immoral because it makes other people suffer. Argument 3: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because you will become part of a public record. In many court documents, if personal bankruptcy is filed, and this can even extend to the newspaper, all because you stupidly filed personal bankruptcy because it was \"worth it\" as pro is suggesting. Therefore, you will not be able to keep your finances private if you file personal bankruptcy; your finances will go public, and most people like to keep them private. Voters, before this round is over, let me remind you, that if you file personal bankruptcy, you need a plan to pay it back when your bankruptcy is over. But how will you pay it back if you have bad credit and no credit cards? Can you pay thousands of dollars in cash? Probably not, because you're bankrupt. In conclusion, I believe that personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit, it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, immoral, and unreliable while other people suffer for your mistake, and lastly because your finances will go public. Thank you for reading, and please vote for the Con side of this debate. Good luck pro!","debt unites students Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more \"My Dad is richer than your Dad\" bullying.","Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's \"forgiveness\" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.","Tuition-Free College If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.","Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Greetings, I congratulate Con (aka Inquisitor) for truly making an excellent speech. To be sure, Con's speech is above averaged compared to the debaters I've argued against in the past. I am honored to be a part of Con's first debate here on Debate.org. Hopefully, this is first of many debates for Con. Likewise, I have many responsibilities to fulfill, so I will be succinct in my refutation. Con provided two main arguments in defense of his/her position. I will counter them individually. I. \"Student financial aid is most definitely necessary...for people less privileged or unable to pay...\" The crux of Con's argument is that underprivileged students should receive federal student aid in order to afford going to the educational institution of their choice. Thus, Con argues, for-profit colleges should not be excluded. Con, please correct me if I misrepresented you. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Underprivileged students should be able to go wherever they want regardless of ability. The problem here is that it discourages prudence in favor of excess. That these student are able to go to even one college is itself a major improvement. 2. It ignores other gov't subsidized alternatives, like community college or vocational/trade school. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that people who choose not to go to college are privileged. After all, they're not the ones who will exit school with an average of $25,000 in debt and, more often than not, a worthless liberal arts degree. II. \"[For-profit] colleges are more suitable for students.\" The crux of Con's argument is flexibility. I am forced to agree. For-profit colleges are much more lenient than their counterparts. But why? That is where things start to get sinister. I submit that for-profit colleges are more flexible than their counterparts precisely because it encourages their students to be financially inefficient and thereby maximize the college's profits. Let me elucidate this point. Students who earn the least amount of college credit per semester with graduate the latest and will spend more money at school (because of having to attending more classes). However, student who earn the most amount of college credit per semester (including CLEP tests) will graduate the soonest and will likely spend the least amount of money at school. This juxtaposition should be a self-evident truth. Now, regarding flexibility, it makes sense that for-profit colleges would not be as strict as their counterparts because allowing students to graduate slower translates into more profit for the institution. The United States should not allows this implicit exploitation. How? By removing financial aid from for-profit colleges and, thus, removing the incentive to be inefficient with one's college years. Con's argument of flexibility actually supports my position. Having refuted Con's arguments, I await Round 3.","kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education I will address my opponent's points in four sections. 1)America might become more socially divided. Many people claim that college itself has helped socially divide the country. a)Many liberal colleges have brainwashed kids that everyone is racist, everything is socially unjust, and literally taught otherwise normal kids to become fart leftwing extremists. https://www.theblaze.com... https://www.amazon.com... b)Student debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime divides us socially. If you have $100,000 in student debt, you fall to the bottom of that divide rather quickly and never dig out. The same people dependent on this money are the ones telling you how evil the Capitalism system is and are feigning and preaching free college. Yeah right. That's a warning sign. 2)Less Americans will need public assistance. I disagree with this assessment because I think that there will be the same amount of jobs no matter how many people go to college. It will just flood those job markets with qualified workers who can't get jobs in those fields due to everyone being qualified. It might cause more joblessness. Pay for these jobs would also go down. Why? Because qualified workers would now be a dime a dozen. You could find them anywhere. What drives pay up in a career path is the fact that finding good, qualified workers in that career is hard. 3)Most good students don't apply for loans because of low income. Here are links about to get free grants for college and ways to pay absolutely nothing for tuition. http://money.cnn.com... http://www.collegescholarships.org... https://studentaid.ed.gov... 4)Student Loan Debt- This might be a great argument to be crystal clear on what loans you do or do not take for college in the current atmosphere. I argue that if you had been working those 4-10 years of college at any job, you could get ahead by 4-10 years worth of savings and offset or even accumulate more than if you had gone to college to get a job that now everyone and their dog is qualified for.","Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay It wouldn't be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn't discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does. We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.","Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Pro: \"The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed.\" Exactly. So any \"trickle down\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless. As a matter of fact, it makes all models useless, unless that model includes paying their debt off or giving them enough money to make a difference. If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500. All of these peoples' money is intercepted before they can even see it. People making say, $17 an hour , are living like people making minimum wage or less. Are they contributing to the economy? No. More than 25% of students who take on college debt are graduating with way too much of it, according to experts. And the repercussions could be lifelong. 25% of students are in the situation I described above. Fix this and you fix a giant heap of the economic unbalance in the U.S. today. Imagine if that 25% were not enslaved to the student loan system. How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference. time.com/money/4168510/why-student-loan-crisis-is-worse-than-people-think According to Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, \"There needs to be more accountability by schools who have been taking advantage of these kids, It makes me very angry.” -The average student loan balance among people with bachelor's degrees has risen from $15,000 in the mid 1990s to about $27,000, according to the Fed. \"This is having a crippling effect on economic activity, says Barbara O'Neill, a specialist in financial resource management for Rutgers University.\" \"A lot of things are being postponed. You've got what you call a crowding out effect. People only have so much money,\" she said. \"There’s a lot of business activity that isn’t taking place ... It’s a drag on everything.\" \"Fewer people are buying homes and cars, O'Neill says, because large portions of their income are being eaten up by student loans. They're also less likely to start the small businesses that provide jobs and services that drive the economy.\" www.businessinsider.com/3-charts-explain-the-effect-of-student-loans-on-the-economy-2015-5 http://www.forbes.com... * Students are having no luck finding jobs except in the service sector industry. For the first time in history, student loan debt now exceeds the total national credit card debt. One in every five young adults between the ages of 18 to 34 are in poverty. economyincrisis.org/content/the-root-cause-for-student-loan-debt * This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels. \"Trickle down\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. It can't find its way to the middle class when it's intercepted to payoff student loan debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime anyway. It trickles down to...the government to try and recover their losses on irresponsible federal lending. The government caused a problem that no current economic model can overcome without the problem being removed or solved. * Supply Side Economics has worked and can work. In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, \"1982-1999 was one continuous mega economic expansion.\" As it reached into 2007, this 25 Year Boom causef a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. families and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion in 2007. When an adjustment was made for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year stretch than in the previous 200 years combined. www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics","The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed C1P1: I contest as ludicrous the notion that employees have any control over being laid off and that the companies are forced to lay off workers. Executives often significantly increase their own pay for dumping workers on the street -- this disproves their payroll was not too costly, they merely transferred payroll to increase their own wealth by completely eliminating the income of a large number of people. Further, no regard is given to productivity when laying off workers; workers in third-world countries have much lower standards with rampant quality problems, and measure as being far less productive. An employee has no control over being laid off to be replaced with foreign workers. Changed loan: The consumer has zero power to change the terms of the loan or negotiate to have this one-sided abuse out of the contract. To suggest there is an equal footing between lender and lendee is ludicrous. Medical: If one loses one's income and cannot make any payments, it still harms credit and a person whose sole debt is medical would be discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical debt is inherently involuntary, unless you consider it acceptable for someone with immediate medical need to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford the payments. C1P2: Student Loan - There is no \"cheap\" post-secondary education. The cost of tuition and books has increased in double-digit percentages every single year for many years now. Inflation and incomes have not risen anywhere close, especially for someone who has not yet had a degree to have a high-income position to afford persuing a degree. Further, many educational institutions give full control over a student's finances to a Financial Aid officer. There is no real recourse for a student against an incompent or fraudulent Financial Aid Officer or practices that cause a student to lose qualifying status, leaving the student with no means of completing their degree and a large loan they must find a way to repay without the wages students are impressioned to believe would result from having a degree. None of these situations are in the control of a consumer. C1P3: A person who has a high credit rating because they stole money which gave them no problem paying bills will get preferential treatment in getting hired, etc. Credit history is used by a lot of companies in the hiring process, which is one of my arguments for curtailing their use -- there is no valid use for a would-be employer to use one's credit history in the hiring process. I'm a bit disturbed that CON thinks someone who has a lot of money lying around because they stole it is a trustworthy business partner ... I surely hope CON mis-understood what he was saying. C2:1 - It is up to the voters in this debate, then, whether they accept those situations as warranting discriminatory hiring practices, housing and other private/corporate-controlled aspects of necessary life in the U.S.A. that are supposed to be protected from discrimination. C2:2 - A person chooses whether or not to commit a crime. A person has no choice for their employer reducing or eliminating their income or a lender raising their payments to an unaffordable level, or whether or not be stricken with injury or illness requiring treatment or operations they cannot afford, or whether an expensive postsecondary degree is a requirement to obtain a job. \"System of credit bureaus...\" 1.) Yes, they do. They have no requirement to operate differently. It doesn't matter whether its intentional on the part of the bureaus ... consider a person acquires debt, then get laid off. Its then very difficult -- and often completely impossible -- to pay debt. Since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, the person then has great difficulty in getting a decent-paying job to pay off those bills. It doesn't matter if it was the credit bureau's, employer's or loaner's intention to conspire against the person to trap them -- the conflux of the three entities is a conspiracy (intentional or unintentional) against the person. And since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, a \"bad\" credit history is effectively a blacklist from getting employment and for anything that uses credit scores to discriminate -- rent, car insurance, etc. 2.) Your claims were false. It is ludicrous to believe a consumer has an equal footing to set and alter terms with a debtor or has any influence in what their employer does. These are completely at the \"mercy\" of corporations to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing. The consumer has no choice and no negotiating power. The consumer's ability to pay bills hinges on their employer not laying them off. What power do you have against your employer to keep them from laying you off or cutting your wages versus your employer's power to cut your hours or lay you off? Its very one-sided, and it doesn't matter how \"good\" you are as an employee. In the end, if your employer has profit motivation to close your entire department and move operations overseas where workers are far less proficient but very cheap, they will. That is entirely out of a person's hands ... and how can you pay any bills if you have no income? In regards to bankruptcy, under President George W. Bush, the ability of consumers to go through a bankruptcy process was drastically reduced. A consumer who has lost the means to pay off their debt no longer has bankruptcy as a viable option thanks to the act. C3:1.) You have failed to indicate how they would create harm. C3:2.) I'm not sure which point I made you are claiming as baseless. C3:4.) Credit score is not a valid measure of trustworthiness nor their work ethic. Any assumptions based on the equation of credit score with trustworthiness or work ethic are false, regardless of how popular such notions are. C3:5.) I did not argue for the complete banishment of credit scores, merely for their over-use. Taking out a voluntary loan is one of the few valid uses of a credit score, though this too should be restricted against discriminating against someone for involuntary debt such as medical bills or student loan. Abusing credit scores causes unthinkable and immoral harm under any system that asserts equal, just and fair opportunity for all. AFF 1.) I need not prove credit scores are entirely wrong in all cases, merely they are over-used. I can win if a voter believes fairness and justice are important values and must take precedence over profitability and rule by the biggest purse. AFF 2.) CON has failed to understand this debate is about CURTAILING -- restricting -- the use of credit scores, not banning them altogether. I am not arguing for completely banning credit scores, merely pushing for the case that their use should be highly restricted to prevent infringements upon equal opportunity, justice and fairness. I urge CON to re-focus the debate on the topic of CURTAILING (restricting) the use of credit scores instead of banning them. CON has failed to justify using a credit scores to discriminate against people for employment, housing, etc. in circumvention of civil rights legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Someone who comes from a poor household will not have equal opportunity to make and pay loans to inflate their credit scores as someone from a wealthy household with significant un-earned capital. I put it to all that this violates the axiom \"all people are created equal\" and that the use of credit scores should be curtailed to help level the playing field in any situation where a person's ability to pay debt has no direct bearing or relevance.","Lawyers too in debt to advocate for the little guy \"5 Myths about going to law school.\" Penelope Trunk's Brazen Careerist. May 16th, 2007: \"Myth 4: I'll be able to advocate for the little guy. If you are independently wealthy, you can advocate for the poor, fight for environmental justice, defend civil rights, etc. But if you are like the typical law school graduate today, you will finish with substantial debt. Public interest jobs are too low paying to accommodate a heavy debt burden. Some law schools have a debt-forgiveness program for people going into public interest jobs, but the salaries are so low that they are often hard to manage even in light of debt forgiveness.\"","Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: \"A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt.\" Chapter 13: \"U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years.\" Chapter 11: \"a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts.\" http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: \"It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.\" It is not \"free money\". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn\"t \"created\" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn\"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you\"re right. It\"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I\"d appreciate it if you didn\"t insult my intelligence. \"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\" No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called \"Exempt Property\". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value\"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I\"ve seen it before. It\"s not worth it.","The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549","Student Loan Debt Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.","Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!","Free University Education IntroductionFirst I would like to clarify that, even though this debate is applicable to all countries, I am focusing on Britain since I am British; and furthermore this debate pertains to Britain particularly as there will be a general election next month and tuition fees are an oft-debated subject between opposing political parties.Britain is also the birthplace of the university, with its institutions setting the mould for universities worldwide.Finally, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics that are representative of the world population, so I have to pick a country from which to draw statistics, despite one country not being representative of all other countries.Therefore, I request that I am forgiven for using UK statistics.Financial benefits / costsMy opponent cites the large amount of debt that is the result of university. However, the fact remains that student debt allows anyone go to university no matter how poor. So the assertion that university fees make it inaccessible remains refuted.Furthermore, a graduate is generally more likely to get a higher paying job than a non-graduate, so this would cancel out the debt acquired at university.Finally, student debt is one of the most moderate forms of debt there is:1. If you earn less than £16910, then you don't have to repay the debt (1)2. You only pay 9% of what you earn (2)3. If you don't pay it off within 25 years, then it's written off (3).To summarise, student debt isn't some life-destroying, crippling financial burden - it is actually very manageable and will be likely to be completely offset by the salary increase from a graduate job.There is very little actual risk involved; if you don't earn enough to repay it, then you don't have to. And if you can't pay it off after 25 years, then you don't have to.But considering the personal financial benefits that university can give, a mild form of debt is a very generous form of payment for it.GraduatesMy opponent doggedly insists that graduates would be willing to work in undesirable jobs, but the high level of graduate unemployment suggests otherwise (4).Besides, when was the last time you saw a fresh-out-of-college graduate working in a low-paying job? I can't remember.Pro makes a valid point regarding how graduates are more likely to be more educated than non-graduates.But this is only theoretical education, not real-world, practical wisdom. Employers consistently say that experience is more valuable than theory. (5)Moreover, a degree only provides education in a specific area. For example someone with a degree in ancient history will only be highly educated in ancient history. Therefore graduates would only be significantly valuable to the job areas that accord with their degree, which limits their options in the job market.I agree with pretty much everything my opponent writes in his last paragraph, but people can study civil rights, philosophy, history, science etc.. in high school. One doesn't need to go to university to become educated in these matters.Ultimately, my opponent's last argument is an argument for free schooling, not necessarily for free university. ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it is certainly an interesting subject with more aspects than I initially predicted. But overall, I maintain that my opponent has not given sufficient reason why the government ought to pay for university education instead of the beneficiaries themselves. (1) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com...(2) ibid.(3) http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk...(4) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...(5) http://www.theguardian.com...","The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.","Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos Daniel Gross. \"In Defense of Detroit\". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions.\"","Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I\"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great\"for a while\"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt\"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.","You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.","You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students."],"string":"[\n \"A bill to increase funding for the biosciences I disagree, I think America has much more urgent matters on their hands like the growing debt that is owed. America should indeed reallocate those funds but towards paying the debt off before trying to invest in something like that.\",\n \"Bachelor's Degree The topic for today's debate is \\\" is it right to advocate for completing an Associate Degree as fast as possible and go out to work as soon as possible? \\\" My opponent didn't define any terms which are important which are important for a debate, so I will define the terms we will be going by for today's debate. I define Right as fair I define Advocate or Suggest as a person who argues for a cause I define Completing as to finish I define Associate Degree as an undergraduate program requiring 60 credits to complete I define as soon as possible as the earliest possible moment Since my opponent didn't give a criterion, I will give my own. The criteria the judges should be using for today's debate should be: Encourage a stable life financially ( since finance decides a lot of things like whether you eat or not) So my opponent's first contention is that work experience isn't as important as being educated. This is simply is not true. Since we're talking about being financially stable it's obvious that work experience is highly preferred by employers that you need to be financially stable. according to a 2013 report by High Fliers Research, they concluded that college graduates without work experience had \\\"little chance\\\" of getting a job. This proves that education isn't more important when talking about financial stability. My opponent's second contention is that people like Bill gates and Steve jobs have dropped out of college and had great success and they treated education as more important. This is not representative of what the majority of people who drop out of college can expect nor do we see it happen right now. The median income for a college graduate is around 51,000 and the average income for a high school graduate is 27,000. That is a huge difference. A reason a lot of college students don't graduate is because of poor preparation, and Bill Gates says himself stay in school. My opponent's third contention is going to work early is not a good way to do. I would like to argue that internships count as job experience and job experience is very important to employers, and to financially stable you need to have a good job to pay back whatever loans you took out. Now I will provide some counter contentions 1) My first contention: Finishing college as fast as possible means that you save money. For example, The University of Kentucky's tuition is 24,000 a year. If you can shed 12,000 off the total cost by graduating a semester early and take 12,000 off the final total then it's well worth it and it would be completely right to advocate for that kind of financial responsibility. 2) My second contention: Graduating early means you get to live in better dorms at whatever college you attend, because after you accumulate a certain number of credits the school sees you as a sophomore and you get to stay in upper-classmen dorms. This provides for a better college experience on top of saving money. For all of these reasons, I would urge a strong vote for affirmative side.\",\n \"A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest \\\"student loans\\\" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.\",\n \"Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren Thank you imabench for your post, now without further adieu... Elizabeth Warren has many credentials that qualify her as being a great president. 1) She is a senator from Massachusetts. Elizabeth Warren has been given support by her people of Massachusetts to represent them in Senate. That means she has gotten widespread support from her state, as only two senators are allowed to be elected from each state. She stands as the common woman who made herself into an upperclass lady [1]. This means she knows the struggles of those in the lower class and will do what she can to help them in the right way. Right now this is something we need in a President. We need someone who knows both the lower and upper class life. Senator Warren brings the prime example of both. 2) She has been a law professor for an extensive amount of time. \\\"During the late-1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance. Warren taught at the Rutgers School of Law\\\"Newark during 1977\\\"1978, the University of Houston Law Center from 1978 to 1983, and the University of Texas School of Law from 1981 to 1987, in addition to teaching at the University of Michigan as a visiting professor in 1985 and as a research associate at the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987.\\\" [2] This shows her intellectual capability. As a professor she wrote nine books (two of which became national best sellers) and more than a hundred articles. This obviously directs to the fact that she spends a lot of time thinking about law and especially bankruptcy law as that is her speciality [1]. It's important to know that she specializes in bankruptcy law considering America's economy. It is absolutely necessary that we fix the economy, and who better to spearhead that movement than Elizabeth Warren? As stated earlier she has an understanding of both the lower and upper class to be able to make things fair, and she is an excellent professor in the area of bankruptcy law. 3) She chair of the TARP \\\"In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Her independent and tireless efforts to protect taxpayers, to hold Wall Street accountable, and to ensure tough oversight of both the Bush and Obama Administrations won praise from both sides of the aisle. The Boston Globe named Elizabeth Bostonian of the Year in 2009 for her oversight efforts.\\\" [1] She has shown to specialize in the exact area our country needs. Between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, Warren is certainly the best candidate for the Presidency. Sources: [1] http://elizabethwarren.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"The cap would deprive individuals with bad credit of possibility to borrow The opposition's argument here is a masterclass in flip-flopping. On one hand they support 'rationally' (we use this term VERY loosely) made risky loans, on the other they demand government-provided education for borrowers. On one hand they believe the debt spiral is not worth government intervention, on the other hand they demand more transparency in loan agreements. The reality is that cleanly spelled out theory does not capture the dangers that risky loans have for both the borrower and broader society (that third party that DOES suffer). First, the state often intervenes when people make bad decisions that have consequences for themselves (drugs, suicide, sometimes gambling, seat belt usage). We do this because: (a) rationality is very hard to prove - when someone is in a debt spiral they are *not* rational, they are desperate and act out of desperation, as our sources show (and actually as the opposition concedes when they say this is a 'last resort'); (b) those people who are making bad decisions become easy prey for people looking to bleed them dry, and thus they need state protection; (c) damages to an individual's life generally have broader consequences for families and friends who are *not* implicated in the decision making process. Second, there is tangible third party harm - the harm to society that we outlined at the beginning. Risky loaning is dangerous (as the last 12 months have shown - bankers being ABLE to make dangerous risky loans that are never going to be paid back) and undercuts savings. Third, the opposition's soft support actions (education and information and transparency) are (a) not mutually exclusive with our policy, and (b) unlikely to be able to help - information campaigns have failed, unequivocally, to prevent the massive growth of drug abuse in most parts of the world (and the spread of AIDS/HIV, and the proliferation of gambling addiction, etc etc etc). Finally, the reality is that people cannot live and survive on credit or loans, and any society that endorses this is bound to run into problems (blossoming debt crises across the world, as we cited earlier). Eventually debt will come back to bite the borrower, sooner or later. The later it is, the more deadly the venom.\",\n \"Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis... While it is true that debt payments place a serious burden on governments, one also needs to consider what kind of governments are talking about. Because current debt-relief programmes such as the HIPC scheme are already rewarding countries for good governance, some of the poorest states will in future have little debt to forgive in the event of a natural disaster. Only those which refuse to meet international norms for governance and human rights are keeping their debts and so will be in line for debt-forgiveness after a future mass tragedy. Sadly, in many cases these have governments that are involved in civil wars, killing their own populations as well as others; they are governments that waste most of the aid that comes into their countries; governments that use development funds to feed their own foreign bank accounts; and governments that engage in serious human rights violations. Forgiving the debts of such states will do nothing for those struck by disaster and will make a mockery of the existing debt relief schemes.\",\n \"The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed As my opponent forfeited the last round, I will use this final round to summarize my points. Persons who are economically disadvantaged -- primarily minorities who do not have significant inheritances and persons with expensive medical problems -- have disproportionate difficulty paying debts. The wanton over-use of credit scores exascerbates the problem, making a few missed payments on one bill cause all others to drastically increase, so someone who was struggling and barely managing will have little chance of catching up. A significant percentage of debts afflicting credit scores are the result of student loans -- which most persons not born into wealth or lucky enough to win a scholarship need for a post-secondary education which we are all taught to believe is necessary to have any chance at a decent income -- and medical debt. Denying someone with difficulty paying bills the opportunity for a job assures they will never have a chance to catch up. It creates an artificial hurdle to people who start out economically disadvantaged to be able to overcome poverty by getting a better job, a better place to rent, affordable car insurance, etc. This unintentional conspiracy between credit bureaus, billing departments, employers and other businesses wreaks havoc in peoples' lives by making it difficult for the disadvantaged to have a fair opportunity to overcome those difficulties. A record of a person's debt and their ability to pay them off has no bearing on their work ethic; someone with a bad credit score can be an excellent worker whilst someone with a high credit score can be a poor worker. There is no valid reason to discriminate against prospective employees because they had problems paying bills; it is simply unfair and unjust. The same rings true for leasing or paying for insurance -- since you pay for the month ahead, you have already paid for service and there is no risk of your not paying what you already paid. This is especially true for people who pre-pay six months or more; they should be billed no differently than a person with the highest possible credit rating since, paying ahead, there is zero chance a bill will not be paid in that time. Using a credit score as a determinant is then purely punitive, a sort of corporate vigilantism against poor people. Credit scores should only be used to determine a person's suitability in obtaining a loan. Anything else is discriminatory. If you agree there are any circumstances where refusing employment or service to a person because of their credit score is unfair and uncalled for, I urge you to vote in favor of curtailing credit scores. Thank you, voters, for reading, and participating in my debate, I hope you have enjoyed it and I hope it has been informative for you.\",\n \"Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt Observations Taxes- a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. Debt- something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another Credit Rating- a classification of credit risk based on investigation of a customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred. From Dictionary.com Observation 1 - The only way for the government to gain money besides taxes right now would be to take out more loans, which will put them into deeper debt. Contentions 1.The debt will lower the united states credit rating, making getting money in the future from other countries/people more expensive in the future, making taxes higher in the future 2.The government has no other form of income besides taxes Contention 1- The debt will lower the United States credit rating, making taking out more loans more expensive in the future, which makes future taxes higher. A credit rating is based on many things, such as \\\"customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred.\\\" If your credit rating is bad, you need to pay more interest on your loans, because the lender is less sure you will pay the loan back. The United States, according to treasurydirect.gov, paid $8,702,166,816.21 in October alone, and that was a good month. The united states paid $430,812,121,372.05 last year. That's $35,901,010,114.3375 a month! Granted, 430 billion a year isn\\\"t much compared to 17 trillion, but if we multiply $430,812,121,372.05 by 4, without adjusting for the increasing debt, we get $1,723,248,485,488.2 as our interest debt from 2014 to 2018. That means we produce nearly a trillion dollars in interest debt every two years, and soon, it will be even more. 1 trillion dollars onto a 17 trillion dollar debt matters. Now, this all leads back to credit rating. Soon, the United States will not be able to take out more loans without its credit rating dropping, making it more expensive to take out more loans, getting them into deeper debt that lowers their credit rating again. Lets look back and see what makes up a credit rating. A \\\"customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred.\\\" The United States literally has no money. They do have gold and oil, but the only way for the government to make revenue off of that would be to tax to companies who mine/dig for it. The United States cannot maintain their great prior payment pattern in such great debt, as they cannot pay off old loans without taking out new ones. Finally, similar to prior payment patterns, the united states will not be able to keep up it\\\"s amazing history of always paying back loans when it has so many. Now that we have shown why the debt matters, lets look at why taxes are the best way to stop or slow it down. Contention 2- The government has no income besides taxes and loans This argument is very straight forwards. The government makes consistent money in two ways, taxes and loans. The previous contention explains why the government cannot take out so many loans, so taxes are the only way they can make money. Corrections/ factual misconceptions in my opponents case 1.The only way for the government to make money off of oil/gold/other resources would be to tax the companies that mine them. 2.My opponent stated Japan\\\"s economy is the 25th best in the world. According to the website he sited, http://www.heritage.org..., Japan\\\"s economy is 25th freest, in the world, not best. According to BBC, http://www.bbc.com..., \\\"The country (Japan) has been struggling economically for around 20 years\\\"\",\n \"Risk of default/crisis justifies Obama raising debt limit Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. \\\"Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own.\\\" New York Times. July 22nd, 2011: \\\"Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession.\\\"\",\n \"Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers \\\"Saving Detroit\\\". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - \\\"The carmakers retort that being in Chapter 11 will poison their business. Buying a new car is a long-term gamble on there being dealers, spare parts and a thriving second-hand market for your vehicle. Drivers overwhelmingly tell surveys that they would not take the risk when Mercedes and Toyota make perfectly good alternatives. But $50 billion is a lot to stake on a hunch. A wiser bet is that whatever consumers say today, the stigma of being in Chapter 11 would fade, obscured by price cuts, advertising and most of all news that the car companies were tackling their remaining problems. Remember that, in many ways, Chapter 11 is more stable and predictable than depending upon the government.\\\"\",\n \"Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com... Shareholders’ interests are poorly protected if at all in Chapter 11-style bankruptcies. Usually, such a process will substantially reduce or even wipe out altogether the shareholders’ interest in the company (in which case they typically pass to the creditors). This is a court-backed removal of their property rights. It is not fair that the interests of the creditors or other parties should be put ahead of the interests of the shareholders in this way, especially because the shareholders like the creditors perform an important role in providing the risk capital which is necessary for businesses to function and grow.\",\n \"Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers\",\n \"Higher Education (Full Resolution in R1) I stand for a solid affirmation of the resolved 3 key reasons. First, Necessity. The second, Societal benefits, and the third, economic benefits. With that I will begin on 4 pieces of overview which will lay the framework for the affirmative case. The sole burden of the affirmative is to prove in a cost benefit analysis that the people of the United States would be bettered by the Federal Government ensuring higher education is affordable. It is not my burden to prove solvency at any point in this debate. If I am being held up at gun point, it would be in my best interest to stop my attacker because then I live and keep my stuff the attacker is trying to rob me of. But just because it is in my best interest doesn't mean it is possible. However, if it becomes needed I reserve the right to introduce a plan for solvency later in the debate. Higher education refers to any education above the high school level. Whether it is technical certification, an associates, bachelors, masters, or doctoral education. All of them are applicable. There is a divide between what is best for the people of a nation and the government of a nation. For example, if the Neg proves that the government loses soft power or that a certain party is weakened by affirming, unless they tie is back to the people of the United States, they get no offence. With that I will begin. ==Contention One: Necessity=====Subpoint A: Costly Colleges have Limits and harms===According to a study backed by the Lumina Foundation, 29% of Low Income, High Scoring 8th graders finished college compared to 75% of their high income counter parts. (1) Furthermore, the US department of Education finds that when students are worried about the costs of college, they are less likely to attend (2) The Economist Reports that college graduates make more money than their peers with just a high school diploma. (3) When you negate, you maintain the status quo and you allow these costly colleges to continue to have their limits. This perpetuates income inequality, because as the Washington Post reports, increased access to higher education would allow the growing income inequality to be moderated. This is going to be important because the Washington Post outlines that income inequality increases tuition costs, increases spending, and increases the needed amount of financial aid. This puts the negative world into a viscous cycle. By voting aff, you break this cycle. (4)===Subpoint B: The Government Must intervene===Before I get into the evidence and analysis, lets look at this logically. The Federal Government is the only actor who has total jurdisticion, and despite any current economic woes, no other actor willing to take action has the same amount of funding as the federal government. Furthermore, the government is obligated by the Social Contract to act in a way that is best for its citizens. Now lets look at some evidence here. In the Status Quo, market forces are allowed to dictate prices. These market forces are more geared towards profits and higher fees than what the people need. (1) Secondly, the federal government is the best actor in this situation. According to a study published by Harvard and the Brookings institute, the federal government is the superior actor to provide educational subsides. State Governments, when choosing to provide educational subsides, they must directly take funding from another area. The federal government doesn't have the same drawback, and even if the negative convinces you that they do, because they are so much larger than any of the 50 state governments, the federal government could better mitigate the costs. (5) ==Contention 2: Higher Education benefits Society== By exposing people to new events and experiences, higher education provides several benefits to society. First, The Bedford Group finds that those with higher education are more racially tolerant. (6) Racism decreases social cohesion and leads to numerous harms. The Australian Human Rights Commission finds that racism decreases physical and mental health, reduces productivity, and reduces life span. (7) Going further, those with higher education are healthier. Studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found similar results, with their findings concluding that, on average, every additional year of schooling extends one’s life by roughly half a year. (8) Finally, according to a study published by the College Board, those with college certifications are more likely to get proper exercise than those without. (9).And finally, those with higher education are less likely to be depressed and have better mental health. (10) What this means is that by increasing access to higher education, you better society. On that you vote pro based off the fact that we better the people directly.==Contention 3: Jobs and Wages==As already stated, those with a higher education make more money. But to go further. A report by Georgetown University states that by 2020, 55 million new jobs will be created. Of those Jobs, 35% of these will require at least Bachelor's Degree and 30% of jobs will require an associates degree or some college. This means that a grand total of 65% of jobs will require at least some higher education. (11) Going further, Women who finish 2 years of college have 37 to 39% more income than those with a high school degree. A similar, but less extreme trend was observed with men. (12) In the status quo, the Atlantic reports that 600,000 jobs went unfilled because of a lack of skilled labor. (13)To break the cycle of income inequality, to better society, and to fill the current and future job gap, I can only see an affirmative ballot. I wait patiently for the negative case.\",\n \"debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts\",\n \"college tuition too expensive Tamar Lewin published an article \\\"Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows\\\" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.\",\n \"The lack of universal health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy A Harvard study indicates that a lack of universal health care is a leading cause in 50% of bankruptcies filed annually in the United States.\",\n \"This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channe... Where would you draw the line? The proposition seems to assume that only developing countries suffer from natural disasters, and so require debt relief. In fact, natural disasters can strike a wide range of countries and it is not clear if your scheme would not also apply to middle-income or even rich states. In recent years the United States has been struck by several devastating hurricanes, and many people believe an enormous Californian earthquake is overdue. Given the huge foreign debts of the US government, why shouldn’t it apply for debt relief too in such situations? And what about Japan, for example after the Kobe earthquake? After all, given the much greater physical infrastructure of such countries compared to developing ones, the cost of damage done by a similar natural disaster will be very much higher.\",\n \"Withholding bailout is not necessary to US auto restructuring. It is wrong to assume that the only way to incentivize the US automotive giants to reform is by withholding a federal bailout or low-interest loan program. Even with a bailout, they will need to reform to survive in the long-run. And, the US government can use a bailout to force the autos to reform.\",\n \"Resolve: The federal government should substancially increase social services for people in poverty. Thanks, Pro. My opponent begins his response by saying the reason he mentioned increases in punishment for people who commit fraud against Medicaid is to avoid people committing these crimes to begin with. He writes, \\\"if we punish those for this crime then less people will do it.\\\" However notice that this does nothing, as I said last round, to support the resolution - INCREASING SOCIAL SERVICES. Indeed increasing penalties might be a good deterrent to stop people from hurting the system the way they do now, but how is this in any way, shape or form an incentive to increase funding to expand programs? It simply notes that we can take measures to help the system; it doesn't explain why this measure is a reason to increase services. Next, Pro writes that some people go to college and become social workers or other low-income professionals who will not be able to afford paying back their loans. While this is true and indeed sad, Pro ignores other methods to reduce the cost of tuition at universities to begin with -- such as increasing competition by giving out LESS government loans and grants. Obviously if people could not afford college, the prices must be reduced for the institution to remain afloat, meaning there are smarter, more practical and fair ways for people to be able to afford college rather than force others to subsidize their education. Pro never responded to my questions specifically regarding why it should be acceptable to take money from your peers without giving it back, which is theft. I gave other ideas in the last round to help people pay for college as well. Also, I reject the idea that community college serves no purpose, and I ask that my opponent defend this so I can refute it in the next round. Finally, Pro clarifies why he suggested increasing minimum wage, but I explained in the last round why this is a bad idea and disadvantageous to low-skilled workers. Pro never responded to one iota of this argument. Pro also never responded to any of my other arguments, including the USFG being insufficient to take over what private business could; that his suggestions infringe on the labor market and opportunities for profit; that increased interest rates would severely negatively impact the overall economy; etc. Please extend all of these arguments. Thank you.\",\n \"Trump made his money through bankruptcy Trump uses the chapter laws as stated: Chapter 7: stops all operations and liquidate company's assets. Chapter 11: reorganize a company. Chapter 13: Plan to repay debt. He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws and as his reputation of a presidential candidate and a billionaire. Regardless if he loses the money he gets from his father, 40 million, he'll still be a billionaire. Trump has good credit, but his organization has bad credit. Explain to me why he'll lose a few billions if he lose 40 million?\",\n \"Moral hazard If debt is forgiven is that not just encouraging the borrower to keep on borrowing rather than changing his ways? If debt is forgiven then a borrower may expect that if they get into such dire straits again they will simply have their debts forgiven again. This then would mean the creditor paying over and over again for the debtor's profligacy. The periphery states have to get their books in order rather than expecting the core states to always pick up the tab for them.\",\n \"Direct financial aid is better than pre-defined programs (continued) Poverty doesn’t make everyone want, or for that matter, need the same things. And it is extremely offensive for Prop. to assume so. Prop. claims that providing financial aid to the poor will be degrading for them. However wouldn’t it be more degrading for them to stand in line in a soup kitchen waiting to get the can of soup that every other poor people is drinking? People stand at different levels of poverty, due to different causes and require different solutions for their predicaments. General programs that provide each and every poor with the same food, the same clothes not only ignore such difference, but embody the idea that all poor are equally poor. It denies the fact that the poor are also individuals. Thus it promotes a defeatist attitude among the poor and is in fact much more degrading than providing direct financial aid. Pre-defined programs are not only morally degrading but also inefficient. As mentioned above people stand at different levels of poverty and require different things to help their situation. A blanket provision of same goods and same programs disregards such difference and therefore fail to achieve optimal results. Prop. has mentioned the example of a wheelchair. However what if a person doesn’t need a wheelchair? What if that person is able to get around with just crutches but needs a coat to wear? If the person was given the sum for the wheelchair, instead of the wheelchair itself, he could have bought both the crutches and the coat and achieved a more optimal result for the same cost. This is the crucial difference btw. Financial aid and service provision. Financial aid allows the tailoring of aid to the individual needs of the poor. Such flexible useage minimizes the waste of gov. resources on goods that some might find useless while leading to optimal results by making the people who best know about the recipeints-the poor themselvs-choose its utilization.\",\n \"Governments should deficit spend in a recesion 1) Subprime mortgages and Greek treasury bills were also recently regarded as very low risk...I know markets can be wrong...but it does not follow that just because markets can be wrong that US T-bills are risky. And, subprime morgages (meaning more risky than prime) and greek t-tbills are regarded as more risky than usa treasury bills. 2) Correct. But the debt to GDP ratio has more than tripled over the last thirty years. It has in the usa, but even so the usa has reduced their debt that got the out of the great depression. (1) Canada has reduced their debt burden through the 1960s and 1990s into the 2000s. (2) Australia also has decreased their debt burden throughout the late 90s. It seems my opponent is wrong when he stated that in virtually all countries the debt is always going up. At leat he was wrong about the debt burden going up.(3) Where did you get those numbers?If you follow the link I gace, you will see the numbers from the federal budget. But, the numbers refer to public debt. That is why there is a difference. The numbers I showed still make my point that the debt burden is reduced by governments.As I have stated recesions are terrible things. They are unfair, cause hardship, damage to people and damage to the future economy. However, if the government steps in and spends (because no one else will, that is why there is a recesion), they can end the recesion. Demand will increase and unused factories/equiptment will be used and unemplyed people will be unemployed. The unemployment rate does not plumet not caused because everyone becomes stupid/lazy, it plummets because everyone is scared to spend. I do not believe countries should spend forever. They become fiscally responsible when the recesionis up. But during a recesion countries should spend, grow GDP and end the recesion. (1) http://news.nationalpost.com...(2) http://www.afr.com...\",\n \"If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a “domino effect” on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans – such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.\",\n \"The United States National Debt is the Amount of Money the United States has Created not Borrowed Thanks for the debate akphidelt Try not to call your opponent an idiot next time - it's rude. ==Can the government simply create money? == Yes. My opponent is smart enough to know how they can do this. The Fed can \\\"create\\\" money and increase the money supply by changing the Fed Funds Rate (the interest rate that they lend to banks) or by changing the Reserve Requirement. Both of these increase the money supply and allow banks to \\\"create\\\" more money on their balance sheets, by giving out more loans, without having to accept more deposits. They can also print money (my opponent never says what law requires them not to). ==Can the government pay down the debt== My opponent has successfully proven that Clinton's entire surplus came from Social Security revenue, which by law, must be invested in Treasuries (because otherwise, if it just sits there, inflation decreases its value, so it needs a safe rate of return). However, Clinton's way of saving money is not the only way. We could privatize Social Security (20% of our budget) or cut military spending and use that money to pay down the debt. This is the core of the Paul Ryan plan - to cut Medicare and Social Security, however the Democrats put huge defense cuts in the debt ceiling bill. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be proven - that the government can pay off the debt if it wants to. If you believe I won this point, I win the whole debate, since my opponent believes that if we paid off our debts, money would just start randomly vanishing out of the economy. This is not true. The money would leave our economy only if the person owning the Treasury bond lived in another country and the money doesn't just vanish either - it still exists. ==Greece== My opponent's only real response to this is arrogance. I know that since Greece doesn't control the central bank, it cannot devalue the currency like it would like to in order to pay off its debt, while the US can use inflation to pay off our debts (although it's not a good option because it leads to a death spiral of markets reacting badly, forcing more inflation and ultimately hyperinflation). My point here was merely that investors wouldn't be worrying about either Greece or the United States' ability to pay them back if borrowing money just created new money, rather than creating debts. We do owe the money to people, otherwise the S&P downgrade of our debt wouldn't be a big deal. Once again, my opponent creates a red herring and doesn't respond to the main argument: we \\\"borrowed\\\" because we owe the money to someone. My opponent says, \\\"==The government can OBVIOUSLY create money without issuing debt. == This is not true otherwise they would do it. Which is why all these shenanigans have to take place for them to create money. \\\" Lol. The government takes on debt because it needs to borrow money to pay its bills (which is why we needed the debt ceiling raised). If it JUST wants to create money, say, to increase the money supply, it changes the Fed Funds Rate. I didn't realize until NOW that my opponent seriously believed there was NO OTHER WAY to create money. He keeps waffling on his advocacy in this debate - backing off extreme statements, then remaking them. ==Clinton== Lol. He now says, \\\"There is no dollar in existence that is not backed by debt. \\\" I thought he was using the billions in gold to show that nearly half our money supply is backed by gold. If there is no dollar in existence not backed by debt, then there must not have been money before debt existed. Look to 1980 - how was the number of dollars in circulation nearly TWICE what the debt was? Answer: because debt is NOT the only mechanism used to create money, it is just the one the government uses when they need it, and they are not really \\\"creating and NOT borrowing\\\" money; they are creating money on a balance sheet, the same way that the bank does when you BORROW money. Creating money, in this sense, should mean printing money, since that is the only way the government can create money without borrowing it and owing it to someone. ==M2 does not include loans== My opponent is just sketchy. Read wikipedia. M2 includes notes and currency, traveler's check, demand deposits, other deposits, time deposits, and large time deposits. There's even a chart. Nowhere does it say loans. My opponent seems so sure of himself that he probably didn't bother reading his own source. M2 does not include loans, which means that it's pretty telling that the total amount of money in circulation is not even close to our debt number. 9 does not equal 14.5. ==Warren Buffet== Appeal to authority. And the S&P downgrade was to show that people are worried if we can pay them back, showing that debt is \\\"borrowed. \\\" Buffet even says we can pay off our debt, supposedly something my opponent denies. ==Why do we need primary dealers? == My opponent claims to create money. However, firstly, if this was the case, why do we even allow 30% to directly purchase, since this doesn't create money. Why not require all purchases to go through primary dealers? Because that 30% matches the 30% of debt purchased by foreign central banks. The other 70% is bought by small investors, mostly in the US. When the government needs to sell debt QUICKLY (like right after the debt ceiling raise, when they had less than 24 hours to pay our bills), they need money fast and don't want to wait on small time investors to bid at auction, so they require a bank to purchase the T-bond, and then flip around and sell the T-bond. However, cash is paid for the Treasury bond at the end point, meaning money is TEMPORARILY created by the bank to pay for the T-bond, but that created money is then erased off their balance sheets when someone gives them real money for it, hence the money is borrowed and owed to than investor. My opponent asks this question: \\\"why would a country that has it's own made up currency need to borrow it's own made up currency? \\\" Simple, same reason they need to tax us. They can make up more of the currency in OTHER ways, but this causes inflation because money markets aren't stupid. My opponent next lists 4 things I'm supposedly wrong about. This is petty, especially since he was wrong about M2, he was caught with his pants down double and triple counting when he was doing his math (so if there is a real ethical violation here, it's him), 2 of the other points I'm also not wrong about, if you take my arguments back IN context, and the last (Clinton) I'm still right about since my opponent said, during his little sketchy calculation, that intragovernmental debt should be excluded from our debt calculations, since no ones worries about the government's ability to pay ITSELF back, so technically Clinton reduced the debt we do care about. Dropped Voters. Vote Con if you agree that: 3) You believe the government can pay off its debt whenever it chooses to, without shrinking the amount of money in circulation. 4) You believe that Treasuries are sold for cash at the END POINT. Cash is traded for Treasuries, ultimately, and we use that cash to deficit spend (example, China buying our debt). 6) You believe that the Fed doesn't even need to issue debt to print money. It could just use a printing press or change the Fed Funds Rate, which is the whole point of the floating currency. The government can OBVIOUSLY create money without issuing debt. Other voters: money supply doesn't match debt - 9 doesn't equal 14.5; we obviously owe money to China, so we did \\\"borrow\\\"; QE2 did not force banks to lend more money, so debt purchases by the Fed FAILED to increase the money supply, in spite of that actually being the goal of their policy for once (they couldn't change the Fed Funds Rate since it was already near zero). My opponent says he learned nothing from this debate - probably because he refused to believe I could be right about even something so simple as defining M2, in spite of having a degree in Economics. Arrogance. .\",\n \"debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt\",\n \"The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed In the United States, just about anything you need or want -- getting a higher education, getting hired for a job or renting a place to stay -- is hinged on your credit score. I believe this is abusive, that it unjustly penalizes people for having medical problems or those who attempt higher education (especially if the institution of higher learning fails to provide anything beneficial to a person) and that the use of a credit score for hiring for a job, obtaining a utility service such as a mobile phone, or entering into a rental or lease agreement should be banned because they cause unjust harm and prevent good people from being able to live above the poverty line. Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example). I will let CON make the opening argument, and use this round solely to define the argument. Thank you for accepting my challenge and participating in this debate!\",\n \"Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...\",\n \"If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as “moral hazard”; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.\",\n \"Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy. Side proposition assumes that the European and American economies will eventually improve to the point where the legal sector will begin to grow again. If it does not you may find just as hard to find a job as when you entered Law School. Furthermore, there is a good chance that you will be in significant debt by the time you have completed your law degree, which will have a major impact on your ability to seek flexible employment within the legal field. It is quite possible that you may be forced to forgo politics or public interest law in favour of higher paying positions in less desirable fields. And if you decide to pursue options outside of the legal field, it is hard to see how there weren’t cheaper ways to spend three years, since going to Law School actively requires you to pay people to keep you unemployed. Even if you have received scholarships or training contracts, your options may be limited by the conditions of those offers (mandatory public service, work for a specific firm) which will also inhibit your freedom.\",\n \"Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay If the dropping of the debts was announced then the countries would immediately take out new loans that they couldn’t repay, knowing that the debt would be dropped. They may also start defaulting on loan repayments until the debts were dropped.\",\n \"Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts The idea that this is only an illusionary loss of money for the creditor is wrong. When they hold others debts they have an asset that will be recovered in the future and they are also gaining from the interest on those loans. In practice forgiveness then is transferring debt from the peripheral countries balance sheet to the core countries who then may themselves take a knock from the markets as a result of having much higher debt to GDP.\",\n \"A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education For my first argument, I belief that we Better the Lives of Drug Users through financial aid instead of higher education. the reason been that many of the drug users are already educated and cannot stop so providing them with more money is only a waste of our resources. according to a Harvard survey, 75% of drug users, use drugs to relief their financial needs and problems. it is said that illegal drugs calms ones senses and soul down. another Harvard survey, shows that 85% of drug users are aware of the drugs effect but simply can't stop. you can't expect drug users to stop using drugs unless they want to and 4 out of 5 drug users probably does not want to quit using drugs. my opponent mentions that student are been blocked there access to a full education whereas a student convicted of illegal drug use can still get a full education. we must see that many have changed since 1998 and the citizens of the united states, are more aware of their rights as citizens. The federal government has no right to discriminate these people by providing them with a separate curriculum. it is also unfair to the students who are not convicted of drug usage because it creates an unfair opportunities to the kids who are convicted of drug usage. Enforcing a better education also means giving them a harder standardized text which would increase there stress and prohibit them from coping with life challenges. we could see that enforcing this law will not only be unicycle but will discourage them from getting a good education and quieting drug usage.\",\n \"Free College Tuition (1) Free college would be too expensive. (1a) Fiscally speaking, free college would be a burden to bear for all American taxpayers. In fact, estimates and economical calculations have come to conclude that student loan debt relief would cost the federal government $22 billion alone. A staunch supporter of the idea of free college, Bernie Sanders, seems to have convinced many young students that his economic policies are stable. But it is quite the contrary. Sanders' plans are estimated to raise the debt ceiling to $36.9 trillion over a span of ten years. (2) Free college is immoral. (2a) It may seem ironic that giving American students free college is ironic, but it really is not when broken down. Simply put: stealing the money of a working American who *earned* their money just to distribute it to a subsidized education system that is barely affordable to the government is heinous and incredibly rights-infringing. Why should the average American taxpayer have to risk not only their own -- but their whole country's -- financial and economic stability so some American college students can go to school free of debt and burden? (2b) Free college would give more of a sense of entitlement to the many already entitled millennials who use college campuses to create 'safe zone' bubbles of Cultural Marxism and political/economic ignorance. There is reason to believe that by expanding on free college, many millions of these free college liberals would continue flooding dorms and obscuring the First Amendment rights of students and guest speakers. SOURCES CITED (1a) . http://www.politico.com... . https://consumerist.com... (2b) . http://www.usnews.com... . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.breitbart.com...\",\n \"A Resolution to Better the Lives of Drug Users through Higher Education WHEREAS a law passed in 1998 states that anyone convicted of a drug crime is banned from receiving financial aid for college, and WHEREAS blocking access to education does not solve the problem of illegal drug use, and WHEREAS students should not be penalized twice for their mistakes, and WHEREAS withholding financial aid does nothing to help students with drug abuse problems, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress here assembled to eliminate all prohibitions on federal financial aid for persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. You Start!\",\n \"Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ... There is no doubt that poverty is a serious issue in the world today and that a solution is needed. Debt relief, however, has so far proven to be fairly inefficient in terms of getting countries back on the road to development. In fact, most countries whose debt has been forgiven have not managed to escape the cycle of poverty. Debt relief alone will not be a solution in desperate situations where corruption, totalitarian governments and criminal gangs rule. It is better when natural disasters occur to provide short-term humanitarian assistance in the form of emergency supplies, specialist teams and money for rebuilding. Unlike debt relief, such aid can be focused on areas in real need and monitored to ensure it reaches those suffering in the disaster zone.\",\n \"Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Chapter 11-style provisions encourage sensible corporate planning. Chapter 11 is discretionary and t...\",\n \"College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. \\\"Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,\\\". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.\",\n \"The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round. Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round. Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round. Neg: C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly. P1: First, my opponent makes \\\"the corporations\\\" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer. Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is \\\"forced\\\" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero. Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place. Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from. Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way. However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter. P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school. P3 Flipside: I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such… If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners… Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed. C2: \\\"If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record.\\\" 1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1. 2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: \\\"because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people\\\". A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright. \\\"The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a \\\"guilty until proven innocent\\\" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap\\\" 1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen…) 2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full. C3: \\\"Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse\\\" 1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall. 2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the \\\"innocent until proven guilty\\\" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall. 3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job. 4.) Landlady: Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well. 5.) More Harms: By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral. AFF CASE: 1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden. Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be \\\"unfair\\\" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win. 2.) Ban V change the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other \\\"scores\\\" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it. all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements. In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of\",\n \"Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by its previously incurred debts. For example, bad management, high interest rates or high research and development costs may mean that a company which otherwise produces positive cash flow ends up saddled with debt obligations which it cannot meet. It seems to be a waste to force the company to stop trading just because of the debt, especially if this does not make it much more likely that the debt will be repaid in any case. A Chapter-11 style approach would allow the company to keep on trading by releasing it from some of its historically incurred obligations.\",\n \"Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board. First off, while I did mean that cutting across the board, i. e. . 5% of Federal funding from all programs, was what I meant in the resolution, since I did not state it I apologize. Unfortunately, your idea is simply a mix of both of the debt solutions listed in the resolution, and therefore not relevant to this debate. I'm going to first contradict my opponents arguments and then move on to my own. ^^^There are two problems with Pro's contentions. The first is that it is politically impossible for most if not al of the programs Pro mentioned to be eliminated. The political winds simply have not shifted that far to allow entire departments to be cut, especially when those departments are the ONDP, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education. While I do agree that these should be completely cut, it simple cannot happen. --- Nothing is impossible my friend. Our debt is steadily climbing, and though there are a few devout supporters for every program or department, when survival becomes an issue even the worst of enemies can work together to remain intact. It may seem politically impossible, but when the situation arises, I'm sure that more people will be for cutting these programs out completely than for keeping them intact, or even taking our a significant percentage. ^^^The second problem is that Pro's cuts don't go far enough. There is not a single government program or agency that does not have waste. But the real problem is the entitlement programs. Social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Pro did not even bother to mention these. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the insane amount of money the department of defense receives. --- I did not list those entitlement programs and the Dept. of Defense for one key reason: America depends on these programs. Though it would be ideal for America to simply shut down Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, many millions of people depend on this programs for survival. 10.6 million Americans depend on Social security alone to survive. What would happen if Social Security was cut? Would they be thrown out on the streets, left to die starving, sick, and cold? No, America depends on these programs to continue to provide Americans with the help they need. Also, in relation to the Dept. of Defense, I did not include that in the programs to cut out because America depends on its military to survive. Sure, we spend a lot of money on weapons, supplies, and military technologies, but these things are necessary to keep America's hegemony intact, and thus protecting ourselves from any foriegn, and sometimes domestic, threat. If the DoD's funding were to be cut, America could lose its power and protection, allowing for many to die. . http://www.usatoday.com... ^^^Without cuts in these monstrous programs, nothing will change. ---I agree in the fact that these programs are huge and constitute for a large portion of our spending, but things can still change. By cutting out all unecessary programs completly, we are face with a situtation where over a period of time America can get back on its feet and continue to be a world leader. I urge the voters to realize this fact, and vote Pro. Now on to my points: Since I answered my opponents case and showed why Pro was right, I'll just extend my previous evidence. Contention 1: Usefulness Many of the Federal programs that have been discussed have not provided any real benefit for Americans. The U. S. Botanic Garden does not provide any real benefit to the American people, except to look pretty. This program could easily be cut, and save the Federal government more than $7 million a year. Also, the African Development Program is throwing money at a problem that could easily be solved with long-term investment. This action could save the U. S. millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in a short period of time. Contention 2: Money Drain By not providing any real benefit to America, many programs need to be cut completyl and cease to be money drains. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is another example of a such money drain, constantly taking money and using it to fund a program that is not needed any longer. In a faltering economy, every little bit helps, and money drains suck away money that could be better used for other things. My oponent has yet to really create his own arguments. Instead, he is simply refuting mine and trying to compose arguments out of this. In conclusion, I urge voters to vote Pro for al the reasons provided. Cutting deep into certain programs is the only way for America to remain a world power and to provide for Americans everywhere.\",\n \"High School Diploma There is a man named bob. Bob is in high school and is failing several classes. One day, he decides to drop out, so he does. After he drops out, bob creates a plumbing business and loves every day of it. In his first year, he makes $50,000 fixing pipes in peoples homes. Bob also has a friend names Roy, who didn\\\"t drop out of high school. Roy does great in school and graduates with flying colors. Eventually, Roy goes to collage so he will get a high paying white-collar job. After Roy graduates collage with flying colors, he is unable to find employment anywhere because all of the white-collar jobs have been taken. So now Roy is homeless and is $30,000 in debt, which he can\\\"t pay. Roy can\\\"t get a blue-collar job because he doesn\\\"t know how to do anything but white-collar stuff. Eventually, Bob hires Roy for $12 an hour and Roy manages to pay off his debt. My argument is to prove that people don\\\"t need a fancy high school diploma to be successful in life. The Goal is that getting a high school Diploma shouldn\\\"t mandatory. While high school is not mandatory, People are strongly urged to stay in school and graduate. The contentions are the following. Fewer resources will be used in teaching- the core requirements taught in high school aren\\\"t usually needed, especially for lower skilled, blue-collar employment. Those that do need it are the white-collar jobs. Therefore, the system is creating economic waste by mandating a service that doesn\\\"t benefit to the majority of people. If getting a high school diploma wasn\\\"t mandatory, less people would enter high school, therefore lowering the price of education, and the extra money could be spent on things that need extra cash, such as improving infrastructure, extra cash to get rid of debt, and tax breaks.\",\n \"Reducing the defecit should be the United States primary economic concern What do you define as \\\"idealistic\\\"? In response to my opponent's questions: 1.) \\\"I would like for you to point out instances in American history where we were prevented from doing something because of this mounting debt?\\\" Well, the answer is quite simply never. However, never in American history has the United States Federal Government debt been so massive. So this question is flawed, for it does not take into account that fact. 2.) Yes. 3.) The resolution does not ask to solve for deficit spending--it only asks to provide a rationale as to why the United States government should reduce the deficit. This question is irrelevant. 4.) I am not aware of any such circumstances, however your question is biased. From an objective point of view it would be absurd to limit the bankruptcy of a country on the premise you have set because the fact still exists--Greece, a sovereign nation, is bankrupt and requires a bail out from the EU. The circumstances are relevant only insofar as the fact that Greece has failed economically. 5.) I did not disagree with this statement, I was pointing out that speaking in absolutes is ineffective and incorrect. Your arguments were based on absolute statements. My opponent's case: Contention I: Either the United States Federal Government or Banks must start lending. My opponent then states \\\"if the Government does not use deficit spending to bail out major corporations such as AIG, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and several major banks...economic experts say that 'our imaginations can't even begin to fathom the shape of our economy.'\\\" First of all, the government already has commenced the bail out, so deficit spending has already taken place with regard to the most recent economic recession. If this did not happen, the banks would have failed and this country would have experienced a depression worse than the Great Depression of the 1930's. But why did the bail out have to occur? Why did deficit spending have to happen in order to save our economy? It was because of Moral Hazard, the fact that the senior management of large lending corporations, such as AIG, Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, were able to take large risks and not face the consequences of their actions. Companies gave out loans to toxic assets, made huge amounts of money and created the housing bubble which burst after certain policies by the Fed were instituted. In essence, the most recent economic recession occurred because of flawed government policies and banks giving out loans. If that put the United States into a recession then why should banks start lending again? But that still leaves the government. I asked my opponent if he feels deficit spending is mandatory for economic growth and he responded it was not, and that deficit spending was necessary depending only on the situation. As in the case of the most recent economic recession, deficit spending was mandatory to save the economy. But now the mounting debt is continuing to increase because of the interests of the few, not many. And my opponent conceded to the fact that the interests of few does not represent the interest of many. Refer to my Contention I. Contention II: The public debt simply increases from one year to the next. I do not see how this contention is relevant to the resolution, because the resolution does not ask to argue about the public debt. It states the \\\"deficit\\\" and \\\"United States primary economic concern.\\\" This means that the United States Federal Government should focus on reducing the mounting deficit. The private sector is wholly different from this. My opponents second contention will need some explanation if it is to be considered any further in the debate round. My case: Contention III Stands. Contention II: \\\"Unfortunately, we're now running annual deficits at a level where deficits very much do matter — as the ongoing crisis in Greece so vividly illustrates. The Congressional Budget Office says that after borrowing nearly 10 percent of GDP in 2009, we will borrow even more in 2010, and just a little less in 2011. Thereafter, we're expected to cut our deficits — but they'll still be 4 to 5 percent, which is bigger than anything we saw under George W. Bush and bigger than all but two of the deficits tallied under Reagan. The bills for Medicare and Social Security are finally coming due as the obligations exceed payroll-tax receipts. And this administration, like every administration before it, is unwilling to either make the necessary cuts or raise the necessary taxes. Deficits are starting to matter. A lot. Both politically and economically.\\\" [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. \\\"'We can't just grow, we can't inflate, we can't cut or tax our way out of the problem. Everything has to be on the table,' said David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office and now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation...\\\" [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. Yet Obama, like many G20 leaders, is on tough political terrain. Faced with voter anxiety about a weak economy and unemployment near 10%, he has asked Congress for more stimulus money to spark stronger growth. That spending, however, could complicate his administration's longer-term efforts to reduce a $1.5 trillion deficit, which has fueled voter anger, symbolized by the Tea Party movement. \\\"That's the grand tension of the G20 nations: How do you restore growth while cutting the deficits that can prove very self-defeating?\\\" says Kati Suominen of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. \\\"This is the fine balancing act. And there are no easy answers.\\\" [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. Contention I Stands. Now, it does, at least.\",\n \"Debt deal avoids a disastrous default. \\\"NECESSARY - AND BAD.\\\" Milwauke Journal Sentinel Editorial. August 2nd, 2011: \\\"The deal does allow the nation to dodge a calamitous default - which alone makes it worth supporting. Given the stakes for the economy, we think the decision of some lawmakers to withhold support to be a serious error in judgment.\\\"\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) \\\"Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful.\\\"OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. \\\"First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\\\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things.\\\"I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a \\\"pre-paid\\\" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. \\\"It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring.\\\" If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. \\\"Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit.\\\"Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?\\\"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\\\"t want to treat you.\\\"LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment.\\\"If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank.\\\"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\\\"Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects.\\\"I didn't cheat anybody. I \\\"borrowed\\\" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.\",\n \"Chapter 11 bankruptcy will help autos restructure and regroup. \\\"Saving Detroit\\\". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - \\\"The United States created Chapter 11 precisely to help companies that need protection from their creditors while they restructure their liabilities and winnow out the good business from the bad. If the North American businesses of GM and Ford filed for Chapter 11, their activities elsewhere would be largely unaffected. Even in North America, their businesses could continue to make vehicles as they shed costs and renegotiated contracts.\\\"\",\n \"Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poor countries to spend their revenues unwisely in the expectation that creditor nations will wipe out their debts if they get into trouble. Debt relief for countries affected by natural disasters is different, as by their very nature such events are unpredictable and cannot be planned for. Instead the possibility of such assistance in the event of an earthquake, tidal wave, or other disaster makes it more possible for developing states to plan ahead and invest wisely for the future.\",\n \"Direct financial aid is better than pre-defined programs We have 3 reasons for such belief: 1. Financial aid fosters economic autonomy; 2. is less morally degrading; 3.better serves diverse individual needs and therefore is more efficient Let’s start with the first reason. Problem with pre-defined programs is that they leave no room for independent decisions of the recipients. The recipients are forced to accept what they are given regardless of their individual preferences or needs. For a person to become economically independent, he has to learn to manage his income. Financial aid is conducive to such independency because it only provides the raw material (money) which the recipient then has to figure out how to use it. While there may be mistakes, it is through such trial and error that people learn. In contrast, if gov. provides pre-defined goods it will only result in the poor becoming ever more dependent on gov. Financial aid is also linked to encouragement of entrepreneurship. Many people often have ideas to form their own income source (private businesses, farming etc.) but fail to do so b.c. of lack of seed money. Financial aid will esp. be helpful in such cases. Difference btw. Prop. and Opp. is one side advocates for expenditure while the other supports investment. The money spent providing food and clothes are pure expenditures, nothing comes out of them and the costs can never be recovered. However, if we provide direct financial aid so that poor develop economic autonomy and grow out of poverty, then the money spent are investments with worthy results. For financial aid to achieve such success there will have to be strict criteria that allow gov. to select those who have both the economic motive and capability to pull themselves out of poverty. While this debate does not call for a specific policy model, conditions such as personal record that indicate active search for job, submission of financial plan that outline how the money will be used could be used to further validate the process.\",\n \"Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has \\\"skyrocketed\\\" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that \\\"federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition.\\\" PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because \\\"more Americans have sought education\\\" tuition prices are \\\"higher.\\\" So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that \\\"colleges and universities\\\" set tuition \\\"high enough to capture... funds\\\" wherever they \\\"can be extracted from parents.\\\" So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that \\\"federal student loans\\\" have harmed students.\\\" PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round.\",\n \"Resolved: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just Like most people opposing recent government bailouts, Thomas Jefferson is turning over in his grave right now. It was Jefferson who said, \\\"The government which governs best governs least.\\\" Because I agree that small government means big prosperity, I must negate today's resolution which states: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just. The most paramount Value in today's round is that of: American Prosperity, defined as American's living in, or working to achieve a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition The Criterion which I will use to uphold my value is that of: Justice, defined as the administering of deserved punishment or reward. [www.dictionary.com] Justice is essential to American Prosperity because without the corporations receiving the punishment that they deserve, there is no way for Americans to prosper because the government will put our country into so much debt that there is no room for American's to prosper Definitions are available upon request: [on definitions page] OBSERVATION 1: the term bailout is a misnomer. Since congress is giving money to private corporations in exchange for stake in the company, meticulous oversight into its business, and regulatory control, the proper term is \\\"not bailout\\\" but \\\"buy into\\\". 1: BAILING OUT BANKRUPT COMPANIES THAT HAVE ACTED RECKLESSLY WILL ONLY CONTINUE SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE. (A) Government funding of private enterprise is always bad for the consumers. New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson asked \\\"What are the consequences of a world in which regulators rescue even the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed helped create the titanic mess we are in?\\\" (B) Bailouts set a dangerous precedent which will lead to the destruction of American Prosperity Hedge fund manager Bill Fleckenstein wrote over the past several decades, \\\"Bailouts became bigger and bigger—as the feds tried to solve the problems created by too much easy money with more easy money.\\\" I have one simple question: Where does it end? (Pause) The government buys control of AIG, GM, Bear Sterns, Chase Bank, etc…etc…Where does it end? 2: There were other options that would have better allowed for the prosperity of America. (A) Chapter 11 bankruptcy was an alternate lifeline. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a form of bankruptcy reorganization available to individuals, corporations and partnerships. It has no limits on the amount of debt. It is the usual choice for large businesses seeking to restructure their debt. The debtor usually remains in possession of its assets, and operates the business under the supervision of the court and for the benefit of creditors. The debtor in possession is a fiduciary (a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.) for the creditors. If the debtor's management is ineffective or less than honest, a trustee (The person who manages assets owned by a trust under the terms of the trust document. A trustee's purpose is to safeguard the trust and distribute trust income or principal as directed in the trust document.) may be appointed. The simple fact is that the government didn't completely consider all of it's options when selecting bailouts as a method of \\\"problem solving.\\\" Chapter 11 would have allowed for companies to have their debt reconstructed, which would have allowed for better money management in the future. 3: BAILOUTS ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT. (A) Government buying into private business violates the constitutional principle of \\\"limited government\\\" Thomas Jefferson said, \\\"The government is best which governs least.\\\" The founding fathers of this country believed deeply that government was a necessary evil that should only perform certain limited functions such as maintaining a standing army and build interstate highways. They also believed very strongly that government should not perform functions for which it was not suited, namely—running a business. Because those in government power are inherently prone to corruption, inefficiency, and tyranny, the constitution writers put strict limitations on government, so call checks and balances. But, the bailouts are nothing more than foul expansion of government power way beyond what the founders envisioned. Lastly, just think of the government owned economy of the old Soviet Union and you will get a picture of where this is all heading. Do we really want to emulate and try to duplicate the economies of North Korea, and Cuba? Mohamed El-Erian, of the world's largest bond investor, PIMCO, says bailouts\\\" critically undermine the sanctity of contracts and, at the very minimum, leads to a persistent increase in the risk premiums that lenders impose on all borrowers. In addition, there may be unintended consequences that erode the integrity of the market system.\\\"\",\n \"studying is not the only way to get rich Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes. I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind. Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a \\\"general fact.\\\" I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news. Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don\\\"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect). More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go. Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words. Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. \\\"In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!\\\" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where \\\"Up to Our Eyeballs\\\" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch. I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house. Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as \\\"(47-68) years old?\\\" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this. You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word. In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say \\\"underemployed\\\" as opposed to \\\"unemployed\\\" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my \\\"funny question\\\" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to. The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them. In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they \\\"most likely\\\" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree. Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take \\\"a life time [sic] to clear if lucky.\\\" College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees. To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though. Sources: (1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2)http://temple-news.com... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk... (near the bottom, under Self-harm) (4)http://www.nydailynews.com...\",\n \"There is no better alternative for society than debt free currency I must tell you that because you did not use a spell checker or grammar scan it has been extremely difficult to interpret your thought processes and especially since you use a syntactical style that is, as best that I can determine, shorthand for what you are thinking. For example:\\\"This is true. But replacing the current currency with debt free currency will, as described...\\\" As described? Where? By whom? Anyway. Under your...item #1) These assertions (..create much more inflation....even hyperinflation and economic collapse) are wrong on their face. You have not stipulated the conditions under which your conclusions obtain. The Treasury could do the following and not create inflationary expectations, hyperinflation or economic collapse: For example, the U.S. owes the rest of the world $20 trillion held in bonds and other debt instruments. The Government decides to liquidate this federal debt by printing $20 trillion in debt free currency. That cash monetizes the debt. The Treasury then takes the 20 trillion in interest bearing instruments and liquidates them. Where's the inflation? There is none. (Moreover, I do not agree with any of your unsupported assertions, conclusions.) Current policy allows the Fed to reissue these debt instruments even after monetization, ergo, inflation. Now creditors have the $20 trillion in cash and Treasury and the Fed can reissue the $20 trillion in debt instruments. You state, \\\"But the argument is not that debt free currency is better than the system used before the civil war, the discussion is if it's the bets *possible* system. And it clearly is not, as the current system we use now, of fiat money, is superior to debt free currency.\\\" You make this assertion as if it were obvious on its face. It is not. Above is an example of why it is not. Here are more reasons why debt free currency is far superior to the current system of interest money: If the current system is better, then some one needs to explain to Americans why it does not resolve the following: -- insurmountable debt? -- severe fiscal constraint in the provision of public services and programs? -- rampant unemployment? -- billions of dollars in resources sitting idle and/or going bankrupt because private banks won't lend? Issuing debt free currency instantly resolves all of these issues, especially the liquidity issue within our State and local governments, without adding to national or State and local government debt or deficits. The lack of liquidity was the environment in which Lincoln's debt free Greenbacks rescued the Union. Why do we not see the same happening with debt-money during our extreme lack of liquidity where interbank interest rates are near zero and where commercial rates are extremely favorable? Again, debt free currency can be issued without affecting the rate of inflation. You have ignored a number of critical variables in calculating the impact of debt free money on the supply of money. Namely, whether there are idle resources in the economy, whether the economy is deflating, etc. You state, concerning my example of Japan's situation after the war, \\\"But I fail to see how it is even relevant to the discussion.\\\" It's relevancy is that international private banks are a major source of financial instability for governments the world over. They finance speculators who use margins to carry out their attacks on a nations currency. What the banks fear is that debt money will be replaced with debt free money and they loose the profitable business of lending massive amounts of money to speculators. The potential of that loss drives banks to constrain the \\\"offending\\\" government. (Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money), p. 500-600. You said, \\\"You think that just because there is no debt, the state can simply print money to pay for whatever the state wants to pay for.\\\" I presented an argument not what I believe. Nonetheless, it is true, the state can print money for whatever it wants. Japan has done it. Russia and China do it. The isle of Guernsey does it. The State of N. Dakota creates its funding requirements through its State Bank. A system that all States should adopt, especially those in the grip of insolvency. You raise the issue of Zimbabwe's hyperinflation. Let's review the history, in brief: Zimbabwe is a dramatic contemporary example of runaway inflation. The crisis dated back to 2001, when Zimbabwe defaulted on its loans and the IMF refused to make the usual accommodations, including refinancing and loan forgiveness. Apparently, the IMF's intention was to punish the country for political policies of which it disapproved, including land reform measures that involved reclaiming the lands of wealthy landowners. Zimbabwe's credit was ruined and it could not get loans elsewhere, so the government resorted to issuing its own national currency and using the money to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign-exchange market. These dollars were then used to pay the IMF and regain the country's credit rating. Hyperinflation was caused by speculators who manipulated the foreign-exchange market, charging exorbitant rates for U.S. dollars, causing a drastic devaluation of Zimbabwe's currency. The government's real mistake, however, may have been in playing the IMF's game at all. Rather than using its national currency to buy foreign fiat money to pay foreign lenders, it could have followed the lead of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists and issued its own currency to pay for the production of goods and services for its own people. Inflation would then have been avoided, because supply would have kept up with demand; and the currency would have served the local economy rather than being siphoned off by speculators. (Stephen Zarlenga, \\\"The Lost Science of Money\\\", pp. 579-583.) An accurate explanation of how inflation and hyperinflation obtained is that it begins with a credit crises not the profligate printing of money. The last sentence of your response is a gross misrepresentation of the argument I present. No where do I imply that a \\\"free lunch\\\" is in the offing. There are always administrative costs. Other than that there are no real economic or financial costs to the public sector, citizens who benefit from the allocation of debt free currency, or even private sector banks who serve as depositories for holders of debt free funds. Additionally, debt free currency would serve as a major solution in the development of Third World nations. Debt free currency on a global basis would relieve developing countries of annual debt repayments, these severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of millions of children and provided 90 million girls and women with access to basic education. If the money is owed to commercial banks, it was created with accounting entries. Third World debt represents a liability on the banks' books only because the rules of banking say their books must be balanced. To change this banks must be allowed to hold reduced levels of assets equivalent to the Third World Debt bonds they cancel. Alternatively, cancel the debt bonds, yet permit banks to retain them for purposes of accountancy. Third World debt could be eliminated with the click of a mouse. Then these governments could create their own currency, interest free, rather than having to borrow dollars to buy currency from private banks.\",\n \"Much direct aid is simply recycled as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid fl... Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.\\\\ However, reducing government aid would have immediate damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’ their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.\",\n \"Too big to fail is too short minded for longer economic growth. If we look into the longer term economic horizon we see that the subsidisation of an economic entity to necessitate its survival will lead to the peril of that entity. We can look at the disaster of GM, which we are still bailing out because of the governments failure to let the organization fail. [1] Now the automobile manufacturers were the most notable companies to fail, that being said, the larger problem of failure is yet to come. The banking industry which received over an 80% lions share of the bailout have simply written off the federal funding on their balance sheets through manipulation of LIBOR rates and federal borrowing and repayment of aforementioned rates. Unfortunately I have yet to publish my research on this issue so I have no hard data to back this, however the banking industry paid back a menial 31.86% of the federal money borrowed however it states on any research engine that they have fully paid back the debt. This is a huge problem as this will affect the consumers in their buying power and lead to longer recessionary times, as well as place insecure weights on the Federal balance sheet. A metaphor that one can bring to mind when considering this is a person who has lost full function of an appendage due to a cancer. This person is given an antibiotic regiment that will allow some, very limited, functional use of their arm, and this person is only allowed to use their arm how the doctor says they can and not any other way. The person will be plagued with limited functionality at best and will in the end die as cancer is malignant. We cannot let our country fall to the cancer we must remove the appendage before we fall to the malignant, systemic and global problems that the toxic debt holds for us. [1] http://money.cnn.com...\",\n \"The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan The governments of the debtor countries knew exactly what they were signing up for when the took out the loans! Why should the loans be dropped just because they are struggling to pay? A bank wouldn't drop a customer's debt if they were unable to pay!\",\n \"Debt Relief following natural disasters Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...\",\n \"Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school. David Lat. \\\"In Defense of Going to Law School.\\\" Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: \\\"4. Not everyone graduates with debt (or with as much debt as some people think). I was lucky enough to graduate law school debt-free; my parents paid for my college and law school. And I’m not alone. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (figure 7), over 10 percent of law students will graduate with zero debt, and another 5 percent or so will graduate with less than $20,000 in student loans. So somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of law school graduates leave school with little to no debt — and a valuable professional degree to show for their efforts. There are several reasons why perhaps a fifth of law school graduates have little or no debt. Some have parents, grandparents or spouses who are willing to help out with educational costs. Some have savings from pre-law-school careers, in lucrative fields such as finance or consulting. And some attend reasonably priced state schools and/or receive very generous scholarship money. The dean of one top 25 law school told me earlier this year that about two-thirds of his school’s students receive some form of scholarship aid from the school. [...] So the 'sticker price' of law school, in terms of the cost you see on the law school website or in brochures, can be misleading. Many students aren’t paying full freight — and many of the students who are paying full freight can afford to.\\\"\",\n \"Being successful in life is easier with a college education. 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;\\\"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower.\\\" The source I provided stated;\\\"An Associate’s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor’s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor’s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor’s degree.\\\" Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.\",\n \"Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com...\",\n \"University Education should not be free The only harm that you have mentioned is that taxes of the country go out to free universities. Response to that below: 1- If the argument is only about taxes being used to fund free university education then please note, this is not really a harm. Eventually, the purpose of taxes is to be spent for the welfare of the country. You have to show that in countries where university education is free, taxes could have been allocated in areas with greater benefit to the society at large than free university education. 2- My argument in favor of free university education is: It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that every citizen rich or poor is provided equal opportunities to be able to pursue a successful life. The benefits of university or higher education are immense.. Economic benefits to society of higher level education include increased tax revenues, faster economic growth, greater innovation and labour market flexibility, while individuals profit from higher earnings, lower unemployment and higher productivity. Costly university education becomes an impediment for the individual and the society at large to be able to reap these benefits. The cost of obtaining a U.S. degree is among the highest in the world and rising, which burdens local and international students with heavy student loans. The average amount of student loan debt again crept up for the Class of 2013, and is approaching $30,000, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success. In its ninth annual report on student loan debt, TICAS found nearly 7 in 10 graduating seniors in 2013 \\\" 69 percent \\\" left school with an average of $28,400 in student loan debt, an increase of 2 percent from 2012. But the amount of student debt and the likelihood of graduating with debt varied greatly between both states and colleges. Some states had average debt amounts as low as $18,656, while others topped $30,000. Between different colleges, average debt amounts ranged from $2,500 to $71,000. Government has a responsibility that citizens are empowered with higher education through a free university education system to start giving back to the society. Students must not have the burden of costly debts over their shoulders for years and years after they graduate.\",\n \"Moral hazard Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?\",\n \"Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns £10,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business £100,000.\",\n \"financial stress is part of university life The argument opposite seems to centre around two principal points, the first being that it is fun to be in debt. I don't think anyone except a masochist would agree with that. The second point they seem to be making is that debt teaches self-sufficiency. Which is fair enough, only university fees are so large that they cripple students financially for much of the early part of their working life. There is a difference between undergoing minor hardship to teach carefulness with money and being saddled with crippling debt for years.\",\n \"Debt of law school limits opportunities Cameron Strachter wrote in the Wall Street Journal: \\\"Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else.\\\"[2]\",\n \"This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.\",\n \"The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed The rampant abuse of credit scores is a long-overlooked blacklist conspiracy in our society that follows in the footsteps of grave injustices in the name of capitalism: plantation slavery, child labor, segregation and deadly work environments. There's no justice nor fairness, and frequently things such as medical problems supposedly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act have their protections completely stripped by these blacklists. Even if we ignored all the fraud, abuse, inaccuracy and injustice, if we get to the supposed principle of a credit rating as a person's ability to pay off debt, then it should not be used in any circumstances except in determining a person's suitability to obtain a loan. A person's ability to pay loans and their work ethic are very different meters. A person's ability to pay loans is much less in their control than their punctuality and effort in doing a job well, therefore I say there is no link and denying a person employment based on their credit score is unfair, unjust and in opposition to liberty in that it oppresses them and prevents good people from being able to pay off their debts. Worse, a significant portion of debt is medical bills, and using a credit score lowered by medical debt to deny or charge someone a higher rate for rent or other services should be considered a violation of the Americans with Disability Act. Why should businesses be allowed to violate the ADA through a conspiratorial blacklist of private citizens who have trouble paying medical bills? On the flipside, why should a person who got away with embezzlement or profited from overseas slave labor get rewarded for their high credit rating? === COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 1: CREDIT SCORE IS AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR Credit score is NOT a reliable measure of trustworthiness nor foresight. Corporations set both income from employment and expenses in the price of services, private persons have little control over either. It is not justified to punish a person because they were laid off, their rent increased or their lender changed their loan by denying themy opportunity to earn income or get fair prices for products or services they are not taking loans out to purchse. The use of medical debt to deny a person access to anything should be completely forbidden as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Student loans are another abuse; tuition has skyrocketted and educational instutions rake in obscene money from persons just starting out, making it less and less likely a person will be able to pay that debt off. How much bargaining leeway do students have in tuition? How fair is it the burdens of student loan increase while income does not? Why should students get blacklisted from employment to pay back their loans they have trouble paying when the increases in risk of the debts not getting paid are not the students' fault at all? On the flipside, there is no assurance whatsoever that a person of wealth and good credit rating is trustworthy. A lot of corporations have evaded environmental, safety and labor/human rights by shifting operations to nations with little or no such regulations. Mutual funds and stocks (and by extension, those who have ample amounts or at least access to ample amounts of them) benefit greatly by these ill-gotten gains that come at the expense of environmental sustainability, human rights and the economic sustainability of the majority of the members of our society. Why should businesses be allowed to conspire to reward violating laws by punishing the already unfortunate? --- COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 2: CURTAILING CREDIT SCORES IS HYPOCRITICAL If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record. Further, the criminal justice system operates on the principle that it is worse to unjustly harm the innocent than to punish the guilty; the credit score system does not. Only those who commit a crime under their own free will may be found guilty; someone unduly influenced by, say, insanity cannot be found guilty and punished for the crime. A child rapist gets civil protections under criminal justice laws; a person laid off and unable to make payments does not. How is this justified? The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a a \\\"guilty until proven innocent\\\" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap. A convicted criminal, by contrast, can pay their debt to society. --- COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 3: CURTAILING CREDIT SCORES IS IMMORAL Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse, it is unfair and unjust to allow employers to use a credit score as an employability factor. Even for a person who did \\\"bite off more than they could chew\\\" and deserve low credit scores, their use in determining employment as a determinant of not holding up their side of deals constitutes fraud and conspiracy to prevent the person from being able to repay loans. How many bills can you pay if you are blacklisted from working? Even outside of student and medical debts, most troubles paying debt are from a combination of layoffs and contract terms being changed by corporations with no control by an individual. My landlady's house payments were doubled over just a short time as her loan was sold and re-sold from institution to institution; she was able to keep up with the original payment and terms, but the terms were changed on her without notice and as her minimum payments were doubled, she had more and more difficulty making payments until she finally started falling behind and her home was put in foreclosure. What justification is there for punishing her by making her pay more for things and denying her an opportunity for better employment to pay her bills? This oppresses people and blocks them from equal opportunity and thus must not be allowed to continue. The status quo to continue is an attack on freedom, liberty, equality and justice. Companies will not change this behavior on their own, therefore regulations must be brought to bear on this abusive blacklisting conspiracy. Credit scores are corrupt, wraught with fraud, full of errors and even when they are accurate (far too infrequently), they are still unjust to conspire against people by blacklisting them from employment, housing or other services. Contention 3: Curtailing these scores is IMMORAL A.) Curtailing the use of credit scores has the potential of causing much harm. When companies hire employees, give someone a lease or any similar action, they must, in order to stay in business be assured that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain. People with bad credit ratings have a history of NOT upholding their side of these deals. If these companies were forced to work with these people, they would go out of business, and all the people they were currently helping would be left out to dry. In conclusion, because credit scores are important as an indicator of trustworthiness and because stopping the use of credit score is hypocritical and immoral and unjust, I urge you to vote NEG. (CON) === CLARIFICATIONS: \\\"If you look to the resolution...\\\" You points I have refuted. You will need to disprove my rebuttals or make new ones that have some reliable justification to them and establish that the status quo is free from corruption and abuse, fair and just in contrast to the points I have made. \\\"I'm just not sure what this means…\\\" By that I meant I was not making an argument in round 1, merely attempting to define the argument. This -- round 2 -- is my opening argument.\",\n \"Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to... Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.\",\n \"Bailout deters car buyers as much as bankruptcy would. People have claimed that Americans wouldn't buy from a company that declared bankruptcy. The fact is people are already not buying the cars or there wouldn't be a problem. And how exactly is getting a bailout any different than Chapter 11? Both suggest incompetence.\",\n \"Yummy debtors for lunch. The professor is only eating off the salary paid to him by the college. The U.S. Department of Education is actually eating off your Indebtedness. The next question you need to ask is \\\"do I really owe a debt\\\"? Is there even a debt to begin with? The college loan in brought into existence by your signature on a promissory note, which springs the money into fruition, which pays the school right away. Then the U.S. department of Education then demands that you pay them, with interest from money that they never in fact gave you to begin with. What's your next step? Challenge the validity of the debt. See if there is actually a bilateral contractual obligation that requires you to pay the debt. See, I laugh at all these Bernie Sanders supporters that demand that we have free college. If they understood how our entire phony fiat currency system works, then they might learn that college is already free in a sense. Not to mention all the grant money, pell grant and everything else that the government already subsidizes. We don't need Bernie's socialist plans to further enslave us all. I would put references, but that was all just off the top of my head. If I get an intelligent response to this, then I might be forced to do a tiny bit of research.\",\n \"Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... We need to keep in mind the fact that the need for debt relief is looked upon as a threat of bankruptcy. This means countries that are desperate enough to seek debt relief after a disaster may in future be seen as bad credit risks, and become unable to receive the loans they need in order to rebuild for the long-term after a natural disaster. It is also unclear what qualifies as a “natural disaster”. Earthquakes, hurricanes and tidal waves may be sudden and unpredictable, but as much or even more damage can be done by disease outbreaks such as AIDS, SARS or Avian ‘Flu, or by famine caused by crop failure. And why do disasters have to be “natural” to justify debt relief? What about countries affected by man-made disasters such as war? Tanzania and Chad have both suffered hugely from coping with massive refugee inflows following violence in neighbouring states (Rwanda and Sudan respectively).\",\n \"Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality\",\n \"Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing \\\"I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!\\\" -The words of my opponent. In most eyes, these can be hurtful words, and in most eyes, these are rude words, not accepted in debate. So, I ask voters, just because I forfeited one round, not to award conduct points to my opponent because of his third round/comment. Before I begin, I would also like to apologize for my forfeit. I shouldn't have started this debate, because (1) my opponent obviously does not like me, and (2) finals are upcoming, and I was busy studying, so, naturally, time got away from me and it automatically forfeited. So, my opponent won't have any opportunity to present refutations to my arguments. I will not present refutations to his, therefore making it even. Also, before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent utterly detests me only because of my young age (13), however he does not even state his age, and the one he states is indeed a lie (99). So now, with that aside, I would like to present my main arguments. My opponent has stated that there are only three negative consequences to bankruptcy, however I disagree, and I will prove this throughout my arguments. Argument 1: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit for a minimum . Personal bankruptcy releases you from many debt obligations such as credit cards, however this is shown on the credit reports and drastically lowers your FICO credit score. Not to mention, when bankruptcy is filed, your credit cards are taken away. So, filing bankruptcy means that you're now on a strictly cash spending 'diet', and who uses cash anymore? The majority of people today in the modern world use credit cards. Therefore, personal bankruptcy harms your credit and your spending. Argument 2: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, unreliable, and immoral. When bankruptcy is declared, you have had debts on a number of things, such as a car, a house, a washing machine, dryer, etc. and essentially, you don't pay for it. This is like stealing. You know you can't afford to buy it, yet you purchase it on credit and you don't pay for it, so who then pays for it? The people who pay for it are everyday people like you and me, or the store owner, who has to pay for the person's debt. So when we go to buy it, it's that much more because of the person who declared bankruptcy. Therefore, personal bankruptcy is immoral because it makes other people suffer. Argument 3: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because you will become part of a public record. In many court documents, if personal bankruptcy is filed, and this can even extend to the newspaper, all because you stupidly filed personal bankruptcy because it was \\\"worth it\\\" as pro is suggesting. Therefore, you will not be able to keep your finances private if you file personal bankruptcy; your finances will go public, and most people like to keep them private. Voters, before this round is over, let me remind you, that if you file personal bankruptcy, you need a plan to pay it back when your bankruptcy is over. But how will you pay it back if you have bad credit and no credit cards? Can you pay thousands of dollars in cash? Probably not, because you're bankrupt. In conclusion, I believe that personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit, it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, immoral, and unreliable while other people suffer for your mistake, and lastly because your finances will go public. Thank you for reading, and please vote for the Con side of this debate. Good luck pro!\",\n \"debt unites students Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more \\\"My Dad is richer than your Dad\\\" bullying.\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's \\\"forgiveness\\\" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.\",\n \"Tuition-Free College If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.\",\n \"Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Greetings, I congratulate Con (aka Inquisitor) for truly making an excellent speech. To be sure, Con's speech is above averaged compared to the debaters I've argued against in the past. I am honored to be a part of Con's first debate here on Debate.org. Hopefully, this is first of many debates for Con. Likewise, I have many responsibilities to fulfill, so I will be succinct in my refutation. Con provided two main arguments in defense of his/her position. I will counter them individually. I. \\\"Student financial aid is most definitely necessary...for people less privileged or unable to pay...\\\" The crux of Con's argument is that underprivileged students should receive federal student aid in order to afford going to the educational institution of their choice. Thus, Con argues, for-profit colleges should not be excluded. Con, please correct me if I misrepresented you. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Underprivileged students should be able to go wherever they want regardless of ability. The problem here is that it discourages prudence in favor of excess. That these student are able to go to even one college is itself a major improvement. 2. It ignores other gov't subsidized alternatives, like community college or vocational/trade school. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that people who choose not to go to college are privileged. After all, they're not the ones who will exit school with an average of $25,000 in debt and, more often than not, a worthless liberal arts degree. II. \\\"[For-profit] colleges are more suitable for students.\\\" The crux of Con's argument is flexibility. I am forced to agree. For-profit colleges are much more lenient than their counterparts. But why? That is where things start to get sinister. I submit that for-profit colleges are more flexible than their counterparts precisely because it encourages their students to be financially inefficient and thereby maximize the college's profits. Let me elucidate this point. Students who earn the least amount of college credit per semester with graduate the latest and will spend more money at school (because of having to attending more classes). However, student who earn the most amount of college credit per semester (including CLEP tests) will graduate the soonest and will likely spend the least amount of money at school. This juxtaposition should be a self-evident truth. Now, regarding flexibility, it makes sense that for-profit colleges would not be as strict as their counterparts because allowing students to graduate slower translates into more profit for the institution. The United States should not allows this implicit exploitation. How? By removing financial aid from for-profit colleges and, thus, removing the incentive to be inefficient with one's college years. Con's argument of flexibility actually supports my position. Having refuted Con's arguments, I await Round 3.\",\n \"kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education I will address my opponent's points in four sections. 1)America might become more socially divided. Many people claim that college itself has helped socially divide the country. a)Many liberal colleges have brainwashed kids that everyone is racist, everything is socially unjust, and literally taught otherwise normal kids to become fart leftwing extremists. https://www.theblaze.com... https://www.amazon.com... b)Student debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime divides us socially. If you have $100,000 in student debt, you fall to the bottom of that divide rather quickly and never dig out. The same people dependent on this money are the ones telling you how evil the Capitalism system is and are feigning and preaching free college. Yeah right. That's a warning sign. 2)Less Americans will need public assistance. I disagree with this assessment because I think that there will be the same amount of jobs no matter how many people go to college. It will just flood those job markets with qualified workers who can't get jobs in those fields due to everyone being qualified. It might cause more joblessness. Pay for these jobs would also go down. Why? Because qualified workers would now be a dime a dozen. You could find them anywhere. What drives pay up in a career path is the fact that finding good, qualified workers in that career is hard. 3)Most good students don't apply for loans because of low income. Here are links about to get free grants for college and ways to pay absolutely nothing for tuition. http://money.cnn.com... http://www.collegescholarships.org... https://studentaid.ed.gov... 4)Student Loan Debt- This might be a great argument to be crystal clear on what loans you do or do not take for college in the current atmosphere. I argue that if you had been working those 4-10 years of college at any job, you could get ahead by 4-10 years worth of savings and offset or even accumulate more than if you had gone to college to get a job that now everyone and their dog is qualified for.\",\n \"Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay It wouldn't be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn't discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does. We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.\",\n \"Wealth doesn't \\\"trickle down\\\" from the rich to the poor Pro: \\\"The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed.\\\" Exactly. So any \\\"trickle down\\\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless. As a matter of fact, it makes all models useless, unless that model includes paying their debt off or giving them enough money to make a difference. If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500. All of these peoples' money is intercepted before they can even see it. People making say, $17 an hour , are living like people making minimum wage or less. Are they contributing to the economy? No. More than 25% of students who take on college debt are graduating with way too much of it, according to experts. And the repercussions could be lifelong. 25% of students are in the situation I described above. Fix this and you fix a giant heap of the economic unbalance in the U.S. today. Imagine if that 25% were not enslaved to the student loan system. How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference. time.com/money/4168510/why-student-loan-crisis-is-worse-than-people-think According to Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, \\\"There needs to be more accountability by schools who have been taking advantage of these kids, It makes me very angry.” -The average student loan balance among people with bachelor's degrees has risen from $15,000 in the mid 1990s to about $27,000, according to the Fed. \\\"This is having a crippling effect on economic activity, says Barbara O'Neill, a specialist in financial resource management for Rutgers University.\\\" \\\"A lot of things are being postponed. You've got what you call a crowding out effect. People only have so much money,\\\" she said. \\\"There’s a lot of business activity that isn’t taking place ... It’s a drag on everything.\\\" \\\"Fewer people are buying homes and cars, O'Neill says, because large portions of their income are being eaten up by student loans. They're also less likely to start the small businesses that provide jobs and services that drive the economy.\\\" www.businessinsider.com/3-charts-explain-the-effect-of-student-loans-on-the-economy-2015-5 http://www.forbes.com... * Students are having no luck finding jobs except in the service sector industry. For the first time in history, student loan debt now exceeds the total national credit card debt. One in every five young adults between the ages of 18 to 34 are in poverty. economyincrisis.org/content/the-root-cause-for-student-loan-debt * This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels. \\\"Trickle down\\\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. It can't find its way to the middle class when it's intercepted to payoff student loan debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime anyway. It trickles down to...the government to try and recover their losses on irresponsible federal lending. The government caused a problem that no current economic model can overcome without the problem being removed or solved. * Supply Side Economics has worked and can work. In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, \\\"1982-1999 was one continuous mega economic expansion.\\\" As it reached into 2007, this 25 Year Boom causef a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. families and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion in 2007. When an adjustment was made for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year stretch than in the previous 200 years combined. www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics\",\n \"The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed C1P1: I contest as ludicrous the notion that employees have any control over being laid off and that the companies are forced to lay off workers. Executives often significantly increase their own pay for dumping workers on the street -- this disproves their payroll was not too costly, they merely transferred payroll to increase their own wealth by completely eliminating the income of a large number of people. Further, no regard is given to productivity when laying off workers; workers in third-world countries have much lower standards with rampant quality problems, and measure as being far less productive. An employee has no control over being laid off to be replaced with foreign workers. Changed loan: The consumer has zero power to change the terms of the loan or negotiate to have this one-sided abuse out of the contract. To suggest there is an equal footing between lender and lendee is ludicrous. Medical: If one loses one's income and cannot make any payments, it still harms credit and a person whose sole debt is medical would be discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical debt is inherently involuntary, unless you consider it acceptable for someone with immediate medical need to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford the payments. C1P2: Student Loan - There is no \\\"cheap\\\" post-secondary education. The cost of tuition and books has increased in double-digit percentages every single year for many years now. Inflation and incomes have not risen anywhere close, especially for someone who has not yet had a degree to have a high-income position to afford persuing a degree. Further, many educational institutions give full control over a student's finances to a Financial Aid officer. There is no real recourse for a student against an incompent or fraudulent Financial Aid Officer or practices that cause a student to lose qualifying status, leaving the student with no means of completing their degree and a large loan they must find a way to repay without the wages students are impressioned to believe would result from having a degree. None of these situations are in the control of a consumer. C1P3: A person who has a high credit rating because they stole money which gave them no problem paying bills will get preferential treatment in getting hired, etc. Credit history is used by a lot of companies in the hiring process, which is one of my arguments for curtailing their use -- there is no valid use for a would-be employer to use one's credit history in the hiring process. I'm a bit disturbed that CON thinks someone who has a lot of money lying around because they stole it is a trustworthy business partner ... I surely hope CON mis-understood what he was saying. C2:1 - It is up to the voters in this debate, then, whether they accept those situations as warranting discriminatory hiring practices, housing and other private/corporate-controlled aspects of necessary life in the U.S.A. that are supposed to be protected from discrimination. C2:2 - A person chooses whether or not to commit a crime. A person has no choice for their employer reducing or eliminating their income or a lender raising their payments to an unaffordable level, or whether or not be stricken with injury or illness requiring treatment or operations they cannot afford, or whether an expensive postsecondary degree is a requirement to obtain a job. \\\"System of credit bureaus...\\\" 1.) Yes, they do. They have no requirement to operate differently. It doesn't matter whether its intentional on the part of the bureaus ... consider a person acquires debt, then get laid off. Its then very difficult -- and often completely impossible -- to pay debt. Since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, the person then has great difficulty in getting a decent-paying job to pay off those bills. It doesn't matter if it was the credit bureau's, employer's or loaner's intention to conspire against the person to trap them -- the conflux of the three entities is a conspiracy (intentional or unintentional) against the person. And since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, a \\\"bad\\\" credit history is effectively a blacklist from getting employment and for anything that uses credit scores to discriminate -- rent, car insurance, etc. 2.) Your claims were false. It is ludicrous to believe a consumer has an equal footing to set and alter terms with a debtor or has any influence in what their employer does. These are completely at the \\\"mercy\\\" of corporations to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing. The consumer has no choice and no negotiating power. The consumer's ability to pay bills hinges on their employer not laying them off. What power do you have against your employer to keep them from laying you off or cutting your wages versus your employer's power to cut your hours or lay you off? Its very one-sided, and it doesn't matter how \\\"good\\\" you are as an employee. In the end, if your employer has profit motivation to close your entire department and move operations overseas where workers are far less proficient but very cheap, they will. That is entirely out of a person's hands ... and how can you pay any bills if you have no income? In regards to bankruptcy, under President George W. Bush, the ability of consumers to go through a bankruptcy process was drastically reduced. A consumer who has lost the means to pay off their debt no longer has bankruptcy as a viable option thanks to the act. C3:1.) You have failed to indicate how they would create harm. C3:2.) I'm not sure which point I made you are claiming as baseless. C3:4.) Credit score is not a valid measure of trustworthiness nor their work ethic. Any assumptions based on the equation of credit score with trustworthiness or work ethic are false, regardless of how popular such notions are. C3:5.) I did not argue for the complete banishment of credit scores, merely for their over-use. Taking out a voluntary loan is one of the few valid uses of a credit score, though this too should be restricted against discriminating against someone for involuntary debt such as medical bills or student loan. Abusing credit scores causes unthinkable and immoral harm under any system that asserts equal, just and fair opportunity for all. AFF 1.) I need not prove credit scores are entirely wrong in all cases, merely they are over-used. I can win if a voter believes fairness and justice are important values and must take precedence over profitability and rule by the biggest purse. AFF 2.) CON has failed to understand this debate is about CURTAILING -- restricting -- the use of credit scores, not banning them altogether. I am not arguing for completely banning credit scores, merely pushing for the case that their use should be highly restricted to prevent infringements upon equal opportunity, justice and fairness. I urge CON to re-focus the debate on the topic of CURTAILING (restricting) the use of credit scores instead of banning them. CON has failed to justify using a credit scores to discriminate against people for employment, housing, etc. in circumvention of civil rights legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Someone who comes from a poor household will not have equal opportunity to make and pay loans to inflate their credit scores as someone from a wealthy household with significant un-earned capital. I put it to all that this violates the axiom \\\"all people are created equal\\\" and that the use of credit scores should be curtailed to help level the playing field in any situation where a person's ability to pay debt has no direct bearing or relevance.\",\n \"Lawyers too in debt to advocate for the little guy \\\"5 Myths about going to law school.\\\" Penelope Trunk's Brazen Careerist. May 16th, 2007: \\\"Myth 4: I'll be able to advocate for the little guy. If you are independently wealthy, you can advocate for the poor, fight for environmental justice, defend civil rights, etc. But if you are like the typical law school graduate today, you will finish with substantial debt. Public interest jobs are too low paying to accommodate a heavy debt burden. Some law schools have a debt-forgiveness program for people going into public interest jobs, but the salaries are so low that they are often hard to manage even in light of debt forgiveness.\\\"\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: \\\"A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt.\\\" Chapter 13: \\\"U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years.\\\" Chapter 11: \\\"a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts.\\\" http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: \\\"It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.\\\" It is not \\\"free money\\\". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn\\\"t \\\"created\\\" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn\\\"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you\\\"re right. It\\\"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I\\\"d appreciate it if you didn\\\"t insult my intelligence. \\\"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\\\" No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called \\\"Exempt Property\\\". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value\\\"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I\\\"ve seen it before. It\\\"s not worth it.\",\n \"The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549\",\n \"Student Loan Debt Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.\",\n \"Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!\",\n \"Free University Education IntroductionFirst I would like to clarify that, even though this debate is applicable to all countries, I am focusing on Britain since I am British; and furthermore this debate pertains to Britain particularly as there will be a general election next month and tuition fees are an oft-debated subject between opposing political parties.Britain is also the birthplace of the university, with its institutions setting the mould for universities worldwide.Finally, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics that are representative of the world population, so I have to pick a country from which to draw statistics, despite one country not being representative of all other countries.Therefore, I request that I am forgiven for using UK statistics.Financial benefits / costsMy opponent cites the large amount of debt that is the result of university. However, the fact remains that student debt allows anyone go to university no matter how poor. So the assertion that university fees make it inaccessible remains refuted.Furthermore, a graduate is generally more likely to get a higher paying job than a non-graduate, so this would cancel out the debt acquired at university.Finally, student debt is one of the most moderate forms of debt there is:1. If you earn less than £16910, then you don't have to repay the debt (1)2. You only pay 9% of what you earn (2)3. If you don't pay it off within 25 years, then it's written off (3).To summarise, student debt isn't some life-destroying, crippling financial burden - it is actually very manageable and will be likely to be completely offset by the salary increase from a graduate job.There is very little actual risk involved; if you don't earn enough to repay it, then you don't have to. And if you can't pay it off after 25 years, then you don't have to.But considering the personal financial benefits that university can give, a mild form of debt is a very generous form of payment for it.GraduatesMy opponent doggedly insists that graduates would be willing to work in undesirable jobs, but the high level of graduate unemployment suggests otherwise (4).Besides, when was the last time you saw a fresh-out-of-college graduate working in a low-paying job? I can't remember.Pro makes a valid point regarding how graduates are more likely to be more educated than non-graduates.But this is only theoretical education, not real-world, practical wisdom. Employers consistently say that experience is more valuable than theory. (5)Moreover, a degree only provides education in a specific area. For example someone with a degree in ancient history will only be highly educated in ancient history. Therefore graduates would only be significantly valuable to the job areas that accord with their degree, which limits their options in the job market.I agree with pretty much everything my opponent writes in his last paragraph, but people can study civil rights, philosophy, history, science etc.. in high school. One doesn't need to go to university to become educated in these matters.Ultimately, my opponent's last argument is an argument for free schooling, not necessarily for free university. ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it is certainly an interesting subject with more aspects than I initially predicted. But overall, I maintain that my opponent has not given sufficient reason why the government ought to pay for university education instead of the beneficiaries themselves. (1) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com...(2) ibid.(3) http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk...(4) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...(5) http://www.theguardian.com...\",\n \"The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.\",\n \"Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos Daniel Gross. \\\"In Defense of Detroit\\\". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - \\\"is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions.\\\"\",\n \"Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I\\\"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great\\\"for a while\\\"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\\\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\\\"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt\\\"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.\",\n \"You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.\",\n \"You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":40,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should fighting be allowed in hockey?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\nWhile fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for \"big hits\" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the \"right way\" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.","Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\nWhile fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.","Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\nFighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.","Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned\nFighting in Ice Hockey is very common, but there have been some people who wanted it to stop. Why? Because it's dangerous. Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy.","Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\nFighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.","Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned\nLet me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. \"Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. \"There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because \"it won't do anything\". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans \"will just end up fighting\" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck."],"string":"[\n \"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\\nWhile fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for \\\"big hits\\\" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the \\\"right way\\\" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.\",\n \"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\\nWhile fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.\",\n \"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\\nFighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.\",\n \"Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned\\nFighting in Ice Hockey is very common, but there have been some people who wanted it to stop. Why? Because it's dangerous. Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy.\",\n \"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\\nFighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.\",\n \"Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned\\nLet me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. \\\"Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. \\\"There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because \\\"it won't do anything\\\". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans \\\"will just end up fighting\\\" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports Thank you for joining the debate. I would now like to take the time to present my first point, Desensitization.believe that if we have violence on TV then that will lead to even more violence. People thought that watching violence on TV would get violence out of their systems but there have been many studies that show that watching violence on TV and being around violence will lead to even more violence. People will slowly start to think that fighting is ok and start fighting other people or letting their children watch and this will go on and on if we don\"t abolish all combat sports. look at the world we live in there are stories every day about people fighting and going to the hospital because of injuries or even worse death. If you watch something over and over again than your brain starts to think that it is ok and if people watch violence than their brain starts to think that they do whatever they want and people will start fighting everywhere and this will lead to more injuries, death and people will steal more because they think that they can now knock out a store owner and that would leave a store unsupervised. If we ban All combat sports than Most of this fighting will go away, If people do not see people fighting on TV than they will stop because the main reason they are fighting is because of watching it on TV. There have been studies were if a crowd of people do something than the test subject will do the same, so if we ban all combat sports than people will stop fighting because they won\"t see people on TV fighting.","Basketball is better than hockey First I'll address Con's points, then I'll add three more in favor of bball, the superior sport. \"1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals.\"Basketball is faster. There is nothing more exciting than a cool basket, pass, or other play made, which happens all the time. Yes, this is real life. It may seem to be too cool, but reality is intense. \"2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like \"ball is life\" for basketball.\"In my personal internet travels I have seen many a hockey player say \"hockey is life\", or \"GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!1!!!\"\" Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like \"brick city\" or \"biscuits\"\"Trash talking is in the nature of basketball, and it is part of honored baller culture to say these things. I belive that this part of the game is extremely influental and hockey players could learn something from it. Also, hockey players fight while ballers use words.My Points1) Basketball players have cool jerseys to wear aroundMany people wear these jerseys and become a part of baller culture2) There's a good basketball animeThis reason alone should be enough to win the debate. Watch Kuroko no Basket and you will become a baller. Note: source of picture is not the same as other real life image3) Shaqtin' a foolI refer you to Javail McGee and Shaqtin' a fool.;","Competitive spoprts Should kids be allowed to play competitive sports yes or no?","Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man. With running, boxing is the purest form of sport. All sport is about testing the human body and reactions against others. Boxing does this in the most simple and direct way possible. There is no point trying to deny our human nature - man is an aggressive animal and sports provide a safe outlet for that aggression. Contact sports such as rugby, American Football or Ice Hockey can also be brutal. Society was much less violent sixty or seventy years ago when children were often taught to box at school. That way they learned to control their aggression and to keep violence for the ring.","Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers My turn it is. Come at me bro.\"Watching 130 pound weaklings job for 2 and a half hours just to make the game 0-0 or 1-1 isn't a classy sport, its a waste of time.\"1. And debating about soccer on the internet is a better use of time? :P2. It's a classy sport because we soccer fans appreciate technique and skill above flashy lights and big numbers. We can truly appreciate a sport for what it is: a sport to be enjoyed for it's full duration because of what it is. Soccer is not for those who can't pay attention to something for less than two seconds. Sorry, imabench :PAs to respond to his pictures, so that's how Grandpa passed away....watching golf. Fair enough. Let's look through his proposed plan.1) Metal armor? What year is it, 400 BC?Metal armor is so outdated. Running around like little pretend knights in a game of LARP isn't going to make the sport more entertaining: it would make it harder to watch. Your plan is flawed.2) Anything goes? Hang on a second......didn't you just say below a couple of rules that we couldn't break out into fights? WTF! I call bullsh*t.3) Steel toed shoes? How does this fix fake injuries?!If anything, this gives players a feasible excuse to flop on the ground to grab the call, claiming that they were \"injured by the steel toe kicking the back of their shin. Your plan is flawed again, good sir.4) Immediate medical care? Hold on...Didn't you say that all players do is fake being injured? So why would they need medical care to begin with? I'll go with this, just not the rest of your plan.5) Goalies get to use tasers...Yet I can't get in a fistfight with the prick forward who insulted my mother. Uh huh. That works. Moreover, your attempt to preserve some of the class that soccer has falls short here, as shooting someone with a taser has absolutely no class. It's as classy as farting in the middle of a dead silence at your family dinner table during Thanksgiving. Inb4 you say that's classy.6) Full contact?Yet I still can't get into a fight? For the second time, WTF!7) No all out fighting? You whore.Just when things were starting to get interesting, you pull the fine print out on me and waggle your finger like my fourth grade teacher. What a total killjoy. Which overlooks the fact that it contradicts half of the rules on here, but hey, sh*t happens.8) Renaming teams?Sure, I'm down with this.9) American teams only.Sure then. But you never specify which gender, which means that both male and female soccer teams are included under this rule. Let's explain why this idea is sh*t-poor with this in mind.First, this is what girl soccer players look like. .... Now that we see that any straight guy wants to keep girls soccer around, here's why his plan is going to end girls soccer.1) No chick wants to run around in metal armor.2) No chick wants to run around in ANY kind of armor.3) No chick wants to get shot by a taser.4) While chicks fighting may be really hot, chicks don't like fighting, and thus won't join.5) When chicks get hurt, the world stops until they're seen to. If you try to ignore them, they get pissed off and you end up sleeping on the couch.Your turn pro.","Fighting Your previous statement is just absurd. You just said that you agreed that you should tell someone, but it depends on how serious the fight is. You then said if it is fist fighting, that no one should get involved. Are you kidding me? Do you realize no matter what type of fight it is, that in school or even outside of school, fighting is unacceptable? You can get arrested for fighting, and you can go to court for it. Even if it is in school. In my school, multiple children have already gone to court for fist fighting in the school locker pods or cafeteria. No matter what, they will get in trouble. So why let them fight, when it is just obvious that someone will be seriously hurt, and the charges will just be more severe. Lets use an example. A fight starts in the cafeteria, but right before they start throwing punches, someone tells on them and a teacher breaks it up. What would happen then? They probably wouldn't even get suspended. Now, look at what happens if the teacher didn't break it up. They start throwing punches, and one of them walks away, having lost three teeth, and his entire body being bruised/broken. What would happen then? They would both get in severe trouble for fighting, and they would probably be spending time in jail. This is why no matter what type of fight it is, an adult should be informed right away, so action can be taken.","Should WWE Be Banned That's exactly what I mean, I say it should be banned because the fighters are paid to beat each other up and act like they hate each other","Should there be Football at Mount Saint Charles I agree with you that football would be great sports for kids to make friends and have fun. But I think that we should spend that kind of money, only if we have, for hockey team. For example, the arena of Mount is wicked old and antique, which looks like that it will be dilapidated soon enough. So if we will have enough money to buy all the equipments needed to play football. It would be better off to spend that money for hockey to re build the arena or remodel the area at least. And i also think that Mount should more focus on spreading the Mount hockey team to other states instead of just Ma and RI. I see the big potential for Mount to be literally considered the best hockey team in the Nation. However, I think, if Mount has money to spend on Football, that they should spend that money to expand the prestigious of Mount Hockey team to all around the world.","Hockey vs Soccer The con recognizes that the pro reserves the right to change the the criteria of the debate as long as the pro provides them within Round 2 and no further. My opponent's argument against hockey falls for 3 reasons:1) He fails to prove causality. Salaries may be dependent on other factors.2) The figures presented (\"40k up to 100k\") are wrong. Christiano Ronaldo was paid 15.645 million USD last year.3) Soccer is empirically more dangerous than hockey. Forces are up to 160% greater in soccer.GLHF.","That UfC should be banned. UfC should be banned because all it is, is people beating each other up. It is very dangerous and they could get seriously hurt.","Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed \"Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason.\" Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. \"With the allowance of \"human cock fighting\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \"sportsmanship\". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. \"Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?\" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? \"Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence.\" I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.","Hockey is better than soccer Time for the rebuttals :) Starting at the top Longer games Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Break times/ toughness Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Easiness to learn Soccer might be easy to learn, but that takes the talent level out of it. Everybody knows how to run and kick a ball. It is very simple. But not everyone knows how to skate or or how to stickhandle. The fact that not a lot of people can do this makes it even more fascinating to watch. You are watching people do things that not everyone can do. Injuries Hockey might have a lot of injuries, but that is just part of the sport. That is how you know that hockey is much tougher then soccer. Occasionally you get players like Todd Bertuzzi who are way to violent ( i guess that's how i could put it without using colorful language :) ) those players are punished with suspensions from the games ( sometimes the rest of the season, and on one occasion a guy was kicked out of the NHL) and heavy fines. Take Shawn Thornton for example. He was suspended for 15 games ( should of been longer) for coming up behind Brooks Orpik, knocking him to the ice and punching him. (knocking him out). He also forfeited $84,615.45 in salary. Faking an injury is worst then the real thing. When you fake an injury you are wasting every ones time, and not to mention making a full of yourself. Goalies It takes more talent and accuracy for a hockey player to score a goal then it does a soccer player. Goalies are very flexible and also take dives. Just watch a game and you will see. They often go into the butterfly position which is like a split, and occasionally go down into a full split. Goalies have a lot of skills ( and guts) to be able to stop a puck moving at 95-118 mph. Plus being able to keep an eye on the small puck and knowing were it is every second of the game. A lot of hockey players use black tape so it is harder for the goalie or any other players to see the puck on the stick. Soccer goalies do not move that much either. And the ball is much easier to spot then a puck. http://espn.go.com...","Hockey is better than football Argument #4: Hockey is more difficult to play Hockey is waaaay more challenging to play then football, especially ice hockey. First of all you got to learn how to skate. Then you hare to learn how to pass with a stick and all of that stuff. Then you have to get into even more shape so you don't tire out in the game and then you have to play 3-4 times a week! You also have to travel and practice. Imagine how sore you would be! Football may be tough but hockey is way tougher! And what if you get involved in a hockey fight? You could get beat up a bit adding to your troubles and all of that gear you have to wear! That is 20 pounds extra! All of these factors add up to make Hockey one of the most difficult sports out there. Argument #5: Hockey is much more worldwide \"The Arab Cup of Ice Hockey was intended to be an annual international ice hockey competition involving teams from Arab nations. The inaugural tournament took place on the 16th to 20 June 2008 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. A 2009 competition was planned to be held in Kuwait City, Kuwait but was cancelled.\" Imagine that. Arabs playing ice hockey in the boiling sun. If you have been to the middle east you would know how freaking hot it is. http://en.wikipedia.org... Check that out. All of those countries play ice hockey. But wait! There are even more forms of hockey then just plain old ice hockey! Even more countries play different forms of hockey! Even more. Hockey is an Olympic sport and football is not, making hockey even more international! Well, I hope you post something. DarthKirones","Hockey is the best sport in the world Hockey players are not always getting charged like football players. Also who wants to watch a ball get kicked around for a couple of hours or have stoppages all the time in football, watch a ball get thrown at a net or hit back in forth over the net. Hockey is very exciting to both play and watch.","Ice-skating should be illegal in the United States. My opponents \"arguments\" 1. I did not know that until you told me. For your information, I have a sister who has skated for 5 years. I skated for 5 years at one point. At no point did someone come up to me and ask me for meth. At no point did anyone offer me meth. And just because a name is slang for a drug, does not directly relate to it being subliminal messaging. Coca-Cola is not subliminally telling people to take cocaine. 2. Ok, perhaps I took this argument in the wrong way. Here's a better response: Something being cold has no reason to be outlawed. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Ice is cold. Should we outlaw water since ice is frozen water? According to you, we should. 3. My opponent still has provided no evidence. My opponent merely says: Watch the tapes. However, I do not have access to those tapes. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as the judges judge on their own preferences, and how they think it should be awarded. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are idiots. My argument: Banning ice-skating would be detrimental to society. Here's my back up argumentation. 1. Ice skating is a huge industry. It not only encompasses figure skating, but it also includes hockey. Both sports are huge industries. If we were to ban ice skating, we would lose a huge portion of the sports industry. There is money in ice skating. There is money in hockey. Banning ice skating would create a loss of all those opportunities to make money, and for an industry to flourish. Therefore since less money would be flowing, the economy would be harmed. Therefore, society is harmed, since if the economy is doing worse, then society is directly hurt. 2. Many people look up to athletes, including ice skaters. If ice skating is banned, then these children who look up to people like Michelle Kwan will be hurt. Therefore, it is detrimental to society, because if the kids are hurt, the population is hurt. I am equally excited to see my opponent prove that society will be fine without ice-skating.","we should ban boxing as a sport professionally 1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.","Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Boxing teaches discipline. It would teach kids to remain humble. But you stated the bullies will be able to box their opponents, and this is where you are wrong. The student who have a problem with each other will not get the chance to box each other. The closest they will get it a sparring session which are heavily controlled and safe. There is no better bond you can form with someone than when you are preparing another for a fight. So the people you have a chance to spar with will actually become some of your closest friends. You make the statement of \"The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it\" as it the bully will always be a stronger force. But like I said, if the bully is not a boxer, and the victim is, chances are the bully won't risk the embarrassment of possibly getting beat if the victim chooses to retaliate. But vise-versa, if the bully is the boxer and the victim isn't I mentioned how boxing does teach respect. As a fighter myself, we do not see ourselves as a force. We know what it's like to have someone stronger and better trained go against us, and that makes us humble. We would never put someone in the situation of making them feel weak. But the possibility of that happening is still there. But just like any school sport, there would be penalties to such action. Maybe if one of the boxers does become a bully, he is done for the season. That would motivate the athletes to not bully, or get in trouble at all.","Hockey is the best sport in the world Hockey needs a lot of skill and it has a high physical component to the game. Any debate will have some opinion in it. Hockey is the best sport cause of what I previously mentioned. This debate was supposed to be opiniated.","Hockey is better than soccer 1.) Embellishment - If you are entire argument is based on a video made by some desperate guy determined to undermine the GREATNESS of Soccer using some archaic video footage of nondescript teams. I dont know what to say. I base my arguments on fact and the fact is that these days players who act like that are penalised. Here is the proof--- (there goes the argument on \"embellishment\". ) 2) Accuracy - This is a video of a 40 yard kick in the corner of the goal protected by a goalkeeper well above 6'3 with an entire wall in front of him . 40 yards almost the 2/3 of the length of a hockey rink. that's almost like an Ice hockey goalie scoring from his half. I doubt if you could show me a video of a ice hockey player make the puck swerve in the air from 40 yards out. 3) Toughness - Since you seem so hell bent on the toughness of this game let's analyze this a bit a) Adaptability - Soccer is played in rain , storm , snow and sweltering heats of brazilian maracana with temp of 42 centigrade, Does a Ice hockey player go through the same , No its always over ice , they would probably faint in any other condition. b) Endurance - How can one compare a game of 20 min halves of ice hockey with 45 min halves of hight tempo game of soccer. MLS in US is a very pathetic example of soccer , with sub standard players and worst style of play. If one wants to know how fast this game can be one should at least see barcelona FC in action, which would pale any. Yes any ice hockey game in pace and tempo. c) Ice hockey players wearing virtually a full body armor is not a contact sport, its sheer hypocrisy. I mean why have any protection if they are so tough play just the way actual rugby players slug it out. Rugby is a contact sport which in true essence has tough men not ice hockey. And if my purpose of watching sports is to see tough men i would watch boxing, judo , taekwondo , wrestling not ice hockey. The small minority of people who watch ice hockey watch it for their skill on ice not toughness. Some more facts which would make the position amply clear 1) Soccer largest watched sports in the world , World cup soccer most watched event on planet after olympics 2) Soccer clubs richest in the world more than NFL, NHL, Baseball etc etc. (If you can show me stats to disapprove this I would concede) PS - Ensure caution in choosing topic , either put \"Ice Hockey is better than soccer \"or accept both . Field hockey is still more popular than any Ice hockey.","hockey vs soccer Collin your stupid. I'm saying in hockey you don't get a breather but in soccer you do. there for forcing the game to come to a stop and not allowing the game to go forward. you didn't even debate a signal point in this debate there for giving up the round to me and letting me win!","My Opponent Will Lose This Debate \"eVeRy LiNe MuSt StArT wItH a LoWeR cAsE lEtTeR, aNd My OpPoNeNt CaN cHoSe As MaNy LiNeS aS hE/ sHe WiShEs.\" mY oPpOnEnT's ReSoLuTiOn Is AmBiGuOuS, sEeMiNgLy StAtInG iN tHe AbOvE sTaTeMeNt tHaT tHe CaPiTaLiZaTiOn RuLe ApPlIeS tO eAcH lInE iNdIvIdUaLlY. i PoSiT tHaT bEcAuSe It Is AmBiGuOuS, iT sHoUlD bE lEfT tOtHe VoTeR's To DeCiDe If It QuAlIfIeS aS aN inFrAcTiOn. In ReSpOnSe To My HaNdWaViNg; mY NuMbEr Of DeBaTeSiS IrReLeVaNt, BeCaUsE i CoUlD hAvE jUsT aS mUcH dEbAtInG eXpErIeNcE aS mY oPpOnEnT oUtSiDe Of ThIs SiTe. FuRtHeR, ExPeRiEnCe Is IrReLeVaNt To ThE vErItY oF aN iDeA. sAyInG yOu'Re BeTtEr LoOkInG tHaN mE iS IrReLeVaNt, AnD aN iNsUlT, MaKiNg It An Ad-HoMiNeM iNsUlT. tEaChInG cHuCk NoRrIs ThE rOuNd HoUsE kIcK iS iRrElEvAnT tO oUr DiScUsSiOn, NoR iS iT pOsSiBlE sInCe He'S dEpIcTeDuSiNg ThE rOuNd HoUsE kIcK iN tHe MoViE bReAkEr! BrEaKeR! (d) WhIcH wAs MaDe In 1977, 10 YeArS bEfOrE yOu ClAiM tO hAvE bEeN bOrN (oN yOuR pRoFiLe, WhIcH i PrEsUmE iS a ReAsOnAbLe SoUrCe SiNcE yOu UsEd MiNe AgAiNsT mE).p1 Is UnPrOvAbLe By NaTuRe. YoU cOuLd HaVe EaSiLy HaD a HeArT aTtAcK, cAuSiNg YoU tO fOrFeIt EvErY rOuNd, Or SoMeOnE cOuLd HaVe HaCkEd YoUr CoMpUtEr AnD VeRbAlLy FoRfEiTeD fOr YoU, rEsUlTiNg In My WiN, eTc.p2 Is CoMpLeTeLy SuBjEcTiVe.","Hockey is a better sport than football. Football and hockey both need a high amount of stamia in order to be successful on the field and on the ice. Football and hockey use a high amount of stamia at different times of a game. For example, a football play of high contact lasts about 4-5 seconds. During that amount of time, because you have to react so quickly on every given play, you lose breath and arent breathing regularly than you might be doing in a different sport. You may get a ten to 20 second break between plays but after that you have to go back to action. To continue that for a long 5-7 drive is very tasking on your body and you need to be mentally tough to do it because the other team is feeling the same way as you are but its who wants it more. With hockey, you have to continue playing about 2 minutes then a new line comes in and you have a long period of breath. So your endurance and stamia are clearly a big part in football as well as hockey and just as important as hockey but are used completely differently.","Collisions are exciting and fun to watch. Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons. Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves. It’s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes. Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so. Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport. Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy. Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.","Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd or EverlastingMomentResolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks, semantics4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384.5.Thanks.","Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Thank you for your argument. Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument. 1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of \"human cock fighting\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \"sportsmanship\". 2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena? 3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence. 4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.","The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com...","That UfC should be banned. I think in this statement \"but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport\" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as \"blood sports.\" In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and \"damage\" the other team. Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where \"people are intentionally causing harm to each other.\" If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what \"causing harm to each other\" means.","Legalize Fighting My position is that, as long as it is consentual and the persons involved are not impaired (by drugs, alcohol, or some form of mental handicap) when making the decision, all forms of human on human fighting should be legal.","International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows: 1 – Public Opinion My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling – that's all scripted and choreographed – it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way). 2 – Violence It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. . http://www.imdb.com... Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them. 3 – Red Cards I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners – any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning. 4 – Grudges My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him: . http://www.freewebs.com... 5 – Penalties are thrilling. I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.","Hockey is better than soccer Time for rebuttals First argument The cost and the simplicity does not make soccer better than hockey. Hockey is a sport of talent. Not everyone can skate or stick handle, but everyone can run and kick a ball. Second argument The pace of the game has a big factor in entertainment. Would you sit and watch a game of any sport were the players just walked around slowly? That would not be a good sport to watch. While you talk about a man dribbling past 4 guys, a hockey player can do just the same with a puck. Have you ever watched someone split the defense before? Hockey players also display the positional awareness of there team mates and opposing players while keeping pace with both them and the puck. Hockey players are the fastest people on two feet while on the ice. Hockey players also demonstrate skill on the ice during a game while also adding in contact, making more of a challenge. Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Third argument The video is just showing a few clips of what constantly happens during a soccer game. Hockey players do not embellish because that gives them penalties. Soccer players embellish a lot. Fourth argument This one is simple. Large net small goalie, not many goals. Small net large goalie, still more goals then soccer. Simple as that. Fifth argument Have you ever watched the winter classics or the other outdoor games hockey players have been in? They play in a lot of snow. Hockey is mostly played in doors so they are not really exposed to this weather. That makes it better for fans. You do not have to worry about games being canceled/rescheduled because of weather. Sixth argument The equipment does not protect you from everything. There are gaps in the equipment. And getting hit as hard as they are, the equipment just simply absorbs some of the power behind the hit, but it will still hurt ( trust me) when players fight they take off there gloves ( throw down) helmets are not allowed to be taken off, but most of the time they come off with the power of a hit. Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Seventh argument Out of bounds rarely happens during a hockey game. Getting the game back in motion happens in a matter of seconds. http://video.nhl.com...","Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports Before anyone starts arguing about this issue, you must understand I'm referring to popular American sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. If you're going to argue \"sports\" like figure skating or gymnastics, don't waste your time. I created this debate because this is a popular issue that many people do not agree with me on. I'd like for someone to attempt to defend the opposing viewpoint, but I firmly believe men and women's sports should, for many obvious reasons, remain separated.","Depending where you are in the world, some of the rules do appear brutal In the Pride organisation, a hugely successful operation in Japan in the late 90s continuing into the 21st Century, foot stomps were allowed, as were soccer kicks to the head. This is indeed brutal and probably beyond the limits of what Mixed Martial Arts should condone.","International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. Contention 1: Public opinion I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match. Contention 2: Violence My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible. Contention 3: Red Cards. My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument. - I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive. Contention 4: Grudges My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players. \"Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.\" - False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.","Playing a Catcher in Baseball is Harder than Playing Goalie in Hockey This is also my first argument and good luck to my opponent. I think that be a goalie is tougher because of all the shots you have to take, and how crowded the area in front of the net can get, especially on an empty net. Hockey is also a physical sport and the goalie needs to help defend and stick up for his teammates. Goalies are also most of the time captain of the team.","NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.","Fighting Your examples are very persausive. But I still believe that noone should get involved. They know that there will be consequences for The fight and get they still put The will forward to conduct the fight. If they are willing to fight then they have to be willing to face The consequences. And yes someone will get hurt in a fight that is the point. That is why teenagers or adults do fight. It is up to them to decide what happens in their life and nobody should interfere. If they do get into a fight and someone does get seriously hurt then The person who caused it will go to jail. There are multiple reasons why people fight and if you don't know the reason stay ot of it. Other wise you will be involved and then their friends will come after you. It is just simplier to fight them on The spot then have to worry about them trying to do something more drastic. If they are going to fight let them. You don't need to save someone because you don't know what they did to instagate this fight. It is their choice to fight not somebody elses.","THW ban boxing I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, \"My team\" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate. First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U. S. , though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, \"Boxing should be on the top. .. \" And in golf, it says, \"This is really a sport, but. .. \" Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost [3]. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked! !! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing. More people As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con. My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, \"Even a bad law is a law. \" The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of \"safety\". That is ridiculous. And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. My last argument is really a basic question. .. What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5]. So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably. This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports. I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you. My sources[1] . http://www.thetoptens.com...[2] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.bcmj.org...[5] . https://www.google.fr... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...","Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Sorry for the delay. Argument #3: The scoring The year is 2010 and the world cup is blazing off in South Africa. Come June 25th is a match between Honduras, two OK-level teams, and Honduras shoots TWICE in 90 minute, Switzerland shoots t the net five times. and whats the score? 0-0. In a hockey game the average amount of shots is 30 and yet the score is almost ALWAYS higher. What does this say about soccer? That the players are slacking? I think it says that the goalies of Hockey are trying harder as I see no beauty in a 0-0 game. Now. Jacobie1121 may say the goalies in soccer do work hard and that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. To answer the first rebuttal by repeating myself. SEVEN SHOTS TO 30. A goalie has to block 15 goals wearing tons of equipment but a soccer goalie has to block 2-5 goals with just a special goalie shirt and pants but yet the one who wears less and has to block less is the harder worker? No. Simply no. The second rebuttal would be that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. There are more shots in hockey, allowing there to be more opportunities for goals. Whether it's a close miss or an epic goal those shots are what brings us to our feet. Argument #4: Hockey is a better team sport In a hockey game the team is constantly changed around allowing for there to be more job opportunities and time to play while in soccer it's almost always always the same players. Because there are more skilled players in a lineup there is a greater chance of an exciting game because the talent changes quickly. Different players play with different styles which can be both bad and good. And we all love a good game-changer or game-destroyer! Argument #5: Diving I don't like to see others get hurt. But I HATE people who fake getting hurt for their own benefit. They are athletes. And being fair is a code that all athletes should follow. Why should reward those who fake? They get another player in trouble to give him/her a penalty or to get the person who was framed kicked out. Imagine you were a respectable player in soccer and someone pulled a dive claiming you tripped them. Would you say at least he did not get actually hurt? Or would you mention how unfair that is? The answer is obvious. I have no tolerance for cheaters whatsoever. I include a video about diving to see the sheer quantity of these fakers. I'm ready for your response","Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Will it promote a \"beat the crap out of everyone\" lifestyle? A fighter can only excel in the sport with proper discipline and respect for themselves and others. May I ask for a reliable source for the 52.2% statistic you brought up? Just because someone knows how to fight, doesn't mean they walk around fighting everyone. Nature vs nurture. Your life and the way you treat others is completely dependent upon your upbringing and your lifestyle. Lately we have seen several football players involved in violent crimes including domestic violence, child abuse, and even murder. But we don't associate this violent behavior in correlation with the sport of football. So if we don't blame football for those violent crimes, why would we blame boxing? Maybe we should take football out of schools as well. Maybe we should take basketball as well since Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What I'm saying is, the violent behavior of some, doesn't mean we should take the opportunities given in boxing away from today's youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and even molestation are not brought upon because of boxing. That stuff all happens outside the ring, by people who have never fought a day in their life. It is brought on by the way you are raised, and your own mental state. You cannot blame a controlled sport for the act of people all around the world. With all this being said I thank you for having this debate with me over the past few days. I do believe boxing should be allowed for today's youth as an extra curricular activity in today's schools. It teaches discipline and control, and it allows students to create a closer bond that they could not get anywhere else.","Impromptu 7 2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. Concur. I accept the PRO side of this topic. C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular. According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com... C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days. According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org... C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events. This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love. CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity? Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one! P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL.","Dog fighting should be aloud Thank you for the debate. According to animal laws, there should be a humane treatment of animals, and that is why dog fighting should not be allowed. As a sophisticated society, we Americans do not force other creatures to harm themselves for profit entertainment. We kill them from nessecity, not barbaristic fun. http://www.americanhumane.org...","Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Some level of violence is called for in baseball. Just because most plays in baseball do not involve contact does not mean that no plays should involve contact. It has been a part of the game for decades, so it is false to argue that it is not part of the game, or to assert that baseball is not a contact sport at all. There is also a clear difference between violence that is intended to injure an opponent—for example, in a boxing match or an ice hockey fight—and physical contact that is aimed at a valid objective, such as scoring a run. A beanball is not a way to achieve a valid objective. In addition, a beanball is much more dangerous than a collision at home plate. A beanball has resulted in a fatality at an MLB game[1]; no home-plate collision has even come close. [1] “Beaned by a Pitch, Ray Chapman Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1920, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sports/year_in_sports/08.17.html.","Moderm MMA has rules as opposed to the former no-holds-barred style of fighting Modern MMA has over 30 rules and is sanctioned by state athletic commissions all over the USA and Canada. It is no longer the brutal blood-sport that it once was when it was first intruduced in the USA. MMa is also considered safer than boxing because of the implementation of the new rules.Gone are the days of hair pulling, groin punching and head stomping. Brute force is no longer a factor as it was,hence, strategy and knowlege of anatomy and kinetics is a determining factor. These new rules not only protect the fighters, but they also protect the sport. 1. Butting with the head. 2. Eye gouging of any kind. 3. Biting. 4. Hair pulling. 5. Fish hooking. 6. Groin attacks of any kind. 7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. 8. Small joint manipulation. 9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. 10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. 11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. 12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. 13. Grabbing the clavicle. 14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. 15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. 16. Stomping a grounded opponent. 17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel. 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. 19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area. 20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent. 21. Spitting at an opponent. 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. 23. Holding the ropes or the fence. 24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. 25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break. 26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee. 27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat. 28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee. 29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. 30. Interference by the corner. (UFC web)","NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Here is how hockey is mentally challenging, first of all hand to eye coordination , knowing were to pass to plus a lot of criticism. Also when you get checked , slashed ,ect in hockey you not only need physical strength you need mental strength. Finally you need mental strength to keep playing well, even if your team is losing badly.","Hockey is better than soccer The reasons which have been enlisted are the Speed and Toughness or the level of contact allowed.I am a bit appalled at the choice of the two. Firstly the topic is Hockey is better than soccer. Where as my opponent fails to give legitimacy to the game of field hockey which is more popular and widespread, rather he chose to focus all his attention to Ice hockey. I don't want to get into semantics but Hockey is a much broader term which encompasses both forms and hence ignoring one for the other is unjustified. Secondly the quality of the game is never judged solely on the pace of the game. The parameters are the level of skill required , technical ability, team cohesion, simplicity and the high stakes involved. A spectator gets his money's worth while witnessing the sheer wizardry of Lionel Messi as he dribbles past 4-5 opposition players before putting the ball into the goal. While doing so he displays the positional awareness of both his teammates and opposition players, moving the ball at pace , performs evasive maneuvers, makes several judgments almost simultaneously. If this is not the what displays peak of human ability then I do not know what might. Similarly when Cristiano Ronaldo takes a free kick from 40 yards out , he kicks the ball with strength at specific angle which makes the ball swerve at pace before hitting the back of the net , leaving the goalkeeper dismayed and the spectator amazed. This is what elevates football from being just a game to a religion a faith. And talking of pace Borussia Dortmund forward Pierre emerick aubameyang clocked faster than WR sprinter Usain bolt over a 40 yard stretch. I would love to see an Ice hockey player attempt such a feet on foot . Thirdly Soccer is not a contact sport it is a game played in the mind and executed with skill on the field. There is no scope of contact in this sport hence it is looked upon severely by the referee. Ice hockey players have elaborate paraphernalia to make this a contact sport. Yet contusion , lacerations , concussions, broken bones are regular part of it. We do not know how many promising careers might have prematurely ended because of a rash tackle in hockey rink. Moreover judging a game just because it is not tough enough and players avoid injuries is just a bit sadistic. I recommend Boxing if someone is so inclined towards manning up, let the skill prevail on the field and not brute force.","Hockey is better than soccer YAY! THE FUUUUN PART. Ok. Here: I would like to point out that you did not refute all of my points. “Hockey is a faster sport.” (the whole point) Pensfan states facts about how it is literally faster moving. Alright, I agree, hockey is faster, however, that does not make it better. In fact, it makes it worse! Faster players mean harder collisions. Imagine two players, going “over 30 mph” (Pensfan’s figures.) That is a 60 mile collision. Enough to knock them both onto the hard ice, and that could possibly give them serious injuries. Concussion? Possible. Broken bones? Possible. Blood? Almost guaranteed. Where as in soccer, again I will use your figures, the collision would be two “20 mph” people colliding. Maybe make them stumble? Fall? But no broken bones, no concussion, and maybe a tiny bit of blood. That’s all. Also, a stumble on to grass is cushioned, but a fall onto hard, hard ice, is already enough you give you a concussion. Faster pucks mean obviously harder hits if the puck hits you. I admit, a soccer ball can hit you hard and MIGHT cause an injury. If a puck hits you though, again your figure, at “105 mph”, that is SURE to give you an injury. Take a peek at this video: OOF! The guy even has a visor on. That shows that in hockey, they need protection from all the flying pucks. But that protection doesn’t even work properly! Lastly, if the play is moving around so fast, it is hard to track that extremely fast puck. Imagine trying to follow the puck from here: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Hard Eh? Toughness from round 2: “A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world.” COMPLETELY FALSE! Here is evidence that ESPN did the study and said that “he toughest sport in the world is . . .Boxing.” Source? Here: http://sports.espn.go.com... My opponent is LYING! So judges, this should be enough evidence as it is. BUT, I shall continue. Toughness is not always good. Remember we are debating the best sport in general, not just the professional version of it. It Hockey, I agree, you need to be tougher, but is that a good thing? If you have to be durable, then that kinda shuts down the door for the people who are not tough enough doesn’t it? So if the professionals are tough, that doesn’t mean everyone is strong to absorb a check does it? Uh….you are Pro, right? You have the point about hard Hockey is. For those who are 4, learning to play, easier is way better. If it is harder it narrows the window for playing hockey a lot for only the people who are the strongest and the best. Pretty narrow, eh? Toughness from round 3: Soccer players usually play 45 minutes in a row while hockey players go off and on in shifts of 60 seconds. Soccer fields are bigger and and are not on ice, making the running bit much more difficult. “A large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles” Tackles and spiked shoes are quite painful, so soccer players are durable as well. To doubt the toughness of soccer players is intellectually dishonest. “Embellishment” Diving, really? http://bleacherreport.com... That is 15 different dives in hockey. Ever heard of Claude Lemieux? A little outdated, but still hilarious. Players dive in both soccer and hockey. Deal with it. People cheat all the time, hockey, soccer, debates, board games, cheating is no reason to say one sport is better than another. Accuracy: May I point out that Hockey players use a stick that has been designed to be as accurate as possible, while soccer players only use their feet? If hockey players spent their time kicking a puck then we could compare the two, but the whole purpose of the hockey stick IS TO BE ACCURATE! It is almost rigged. Time: Alright, fine perhaps most soccer games are longer than hockey games, but in the NHL playoffs if the game is 0-0 then the game will continue for as long as it needs to until a goal is scored, meaning that the LONGEST HOCKEY GAME IS LONGER THAN THE LONGEST SOCCER GAME. Also, imagine you are a fan of Soccer, or a fan of Hockey. Would you rather get the average game time of 90 minutes of watching your favorite team or would you rather have less time watching your favorite team. What’s more, you pay money for tickets. It’s better value for you ticket to see a longer game. Scorring: Again, I agree with you, there are more goals in hockey, but hockey goals are worth less than soccer goals. Why? It’s easier to score in hockey than it is to score in soccer. Another example is racing. There are more passes in indie races than F1, but F1 passes are more valuable. Skill: Um, no. Hockey players use a tool. IT’S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK. Soccer is difficult as well, I mean, on average soccer players run 7 miles in agame! That takes alot of skill. Out of Bounds. “Averages Offsides: 16 Icings: 9 Goals: 5 Penalties: 5 TV Timeouts: 12 Incidental stoppages: 34 (non-penalized skirmishes, puck leaving rink, puck frozen, etc)” That is a good amount of stoppages. Do remember that since according to you soccer games are longer, which means more stoppages. Alright, I am very tired, and a little lazy, but I think I have done a good job. Why we have won: We have provided sufficient evidence for our side We have successfully wrecked his points. He had false evidence. THANKS, DDD VOTE CON References (for the whole debate) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fifa.com...... https://www.youtube.com...; https://answers.yahoo.com...","You should vote for PRO in the topic, \"The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.\" Start arguing in the 1st round, BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2.","What's worse: Getting hit in the hand by a hockey puck or punching a solid oak door Who the hell would punch a door","Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a \"Team Sport\". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a \"Team Sport\", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for \"faking\". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT\"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :)","Tennis is better than hockey Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving.","The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens. The Boston bruins in their final postseason appearance this season against the Montreal Canadians was the cheapest team in hockey. They even turned normally good natured, hard working people like Jerome Iginla into cheap shotting pigs. But there is other people who big to differ and say that that's just how they play. As Boston may be the biggest team in the league, but that does not give them any excuse to cheap shot anybody. Just because you get mad you do not have the right to hurt other player and potentially end their hockey careers. The Boston bruins players were squirting water bottles and starting fights. If your a thirteen year old then that's fine to do harmless things like that. But when its your job to keep your cool and to show respect to your opponents. I would also like to add that they cannot take what they're giving. Ever time that they would get hit. They'd act like every time that a hit happened on them, it was the dirtiest thing ever, but if the equivalent was to happen to the Canadians, its a clean hit everytime. And to put the cherry on top, Milan lucic cant even say good series to his opponents. He has to make threats to their life and get them worried about their life. I mean cmon. Thats a new low i haven't seen before. But what are you goanna do if your dealing with the cheapest team in hockey.","Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools CON has forfeited yet another round. I extend all arguments.","What's worse: Getting hit in the hand by a hockey puck or punching a solid oak door dunno, what are the variables? is the puck on the floor? is the door being opened at the same time? ice hockey or field hockey? need some context :)","Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers Soccer. .. .. .. Its that boring a** sport you mastered in 4th grade that foreigners take seriously thats unamerican and for sissy's. .. .. .. .. .. In my opinion. Lets face it soccer is boring as hell, If I want to watch a sport that will put me to sleep faster then a bear tranquilizer then Ill watch Women's Professional anything. Soccer is a boring sport, so I feel it is time to give soccer some credibility and make it more watchable to Americans by changing the rules of the game to make Soccer into a full contact sport. What exactly does Imabench have in mind? 1) All players wear metal armor 2) Anything goes in Soccer now. You want to punch a defender in the face to get the ball then punch a defender in the face and get the ball! 3) Steel toed shoes so that when someone steps on another players foot they dont start rolling around like they got shot and start crying like a b*tch. Ive seen soccer injuries, 5% require medical attention while the other 95% require acting classes. 4) No more immediate medical care, if you get hurt you gotta crawl over to the sideline or wait until someone scores. 5) Goalies get to use Tasers 6) Elbowing and kicking other players is encouraged. Also legal is punching, headbutting, spitting, poop throwing, vomiting, holding, being offsides, facemasks, and anything else. 7) Only rule is no all out fighting. 8) All teams have to be renamed to something tougher, like the LA Galaxy Destroyers or something like that.","Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.”[1] Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance. [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/its-time-to-end-home-plate-collisions/.","dog fighting 11 Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans.","Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Ice Hockey is by far the most difficult sport to master and to play at the professional level. Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand. Ice skating is often the most overlooked facet of the game. So before you even decide, \"Hey, I wanna play ice hockey!\" You must learn to ice skate, and be very good at it because ice hockey can be a very dangerous game if you do not know how to skate. This brings me into my next point, the physical aspect of the game. Just as in football, ice hockey players are constantly placing their bodies on the line. Whether a defender is taking a blistering 90mph slap shot to the face (warning videos include blood and are gruesome) (http://www.youtube.com...) or you are on the wrong end of a skate blade (http://www.youtube.com...) you and your body are constantly being beaten and tested. Just imagine being on the ice, along the side boards, you are about to receive a pass, but you have 6'9 Zdeno Chara bearing down on you, possibly about to kill you. It's this aspect of the game that gets my most attention and makes me respect ice hockey players more. Going back to our passing situation. Having that huge defenseman on you would probably break your focus right? Well that isn't the case for NHL'rs. Because they get paid such large amounts of money they are expected to get that pass and still make a scoring chance out of it. There is a reason a hawk's wide open eyes are plastered onto most goalie masks around the league and that is because the goalie, and all other players on the ice, must be the epitamy of focus while on the ice. Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating (remember skating isn't easy either). I can elaborate on more instances of hockey skills if you would like but I want to get into the debate before needing to elaborate if necessary. I am excited to see your response because this has always been a hot debate in the sports world and would like to see what sport you choose, and your respective points. Thanks!","American Football Fighters I agree that football players should be able to fight because some teams call the wrong plays.","Fights to the death in an arena should be legal All of the claims you've brought at this point are coming out directly from you. I you got no source to back up what you said, then its regarded as false, simple. If you're so sure that America needs sports that haves people fights to the death, then bring a source. If you got no source, you're basically wasting our time.","Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America Hockey is NOT the MOST skilled sport in America it does take alot of skill but not the most here is why 1. There is a cap on skill 2. There is a team to help 3. There are refs to stop violence 4. There is little creativity To begin, i would say that Chess is a sport that takes more skill than hockey. Chess is a mind-sport and it is under-recognizzed on how much skill it takes 1. There is a cap on skill in hockey, not chess A body can only get so fast, so strong, and so good. A brain cannot. A hockey player will eventually reach a peak of skill, and stay roughly around there. A chess player can keep learning and increasing his skill as high a possible. This cap will never be reached because it keeps expanding exponentially. 2. There is a hockey team, not a chess team In hockey, you have other team mates to help you, protect you and boost your confidence. In hockey, the pressure of the whole game does not rest on your shoulders. In chess, you have no one to depend on, no one to help you, and the pressure of the whole match is on you. 3. There are refs to stop violence there reaches a point in hockey were you can't do what ever you want to the other player. example, they can't take off their skate and stab someone with it. In chess, there is no higher-power to tell the other player to take it easy. No ref to tell him he is going to make a move that will hurt you too bad. 4. There is little creativity in hockey but a lot in chess How many ways can you win? how many ways can you score? how many formations are there? In chess, the answer is infinite. You can win with any combination of moves. The challenge? you MUST RAISE YOUR SKILL AND BE MORE CREATIVE THAN YOUR OPPONENT. in hockey, i could be more creative than any other player, but i would suck. in chess, i could be more creative than any other player and i would do well. It takes another amount of skill in chess to develop creativity than hockey","Buffalo Is A Drinking Town With A Hockey Problem Rebuttal \"Buffalo: [1] A drinking game popular in Iceland the rules are as follows: 1. Everybody must use their left hand while drinking (except if you are left handed). 2. If you see anyone drinking with the right hand, you begin shouting BUFFALO! BUFFALO! BUFFALO! and clap your hands or bang a table in the same rhythm. Now everybody notice and join in. 3. This means that the unfortunate drinker must finish his/her drink as fast as he/she can to make you stop. There are no exceptions from finishing the drink.\" This has nothing to do with the town itself, aside from sharing the same name. You also have not made any argument attempting to prove that this meets the definition of a problem. This is a definition without an argument. \"Home games at the HSBC Arena have sold out and the [2]HSBC Arena has a seating capacity of 18,690 for hockey games\" This is not a problem. The revenue from ticket sales will directly benefit the local economy. \"[3]The Buffalo Sabers in there last season won 50 games and lost 45 games meeting your definition of a problem because it is difficult for the Buffalo Sabers a hockey team to win\" They have a win ratio of 10:9 wins to losses. This proves that they are more likely to win than to lose. Arguments Buffalo cannot be a drinking town because a town itself is incapable of drinking. While there may be people in the town who drink, people are not a town. Hockey is not a problem because the money from tickets sales, merchandise, and other hockey-related expenses benefits the economy. It also creates jobs, as evidenced by the numerous employees working for both the Buffalo Sabres and HSBC Arena.","Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I'll give you one thing. You are such a master at the profession of being a Hypocrite! Hey, at least you where honest. I will go and give at least one reason for 6 of my opponents points, on why they are flawed, including rebutting his rebuttal. :) DARTH KIRONES SECOND POINT: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!!!! This seems very flawed. Yes, it might be exciting as a fan to watch, but you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. You are getting punched and shoved, until you get slammed to the ice by your opponent. You start to black out, but vaguely see some hands carrying you on a stretcher into the Locker Room. How the heck is situations like this \"good\"? Also, my opponent stated that they give bigger penalties if serious injuries occur. This is also false. They only give longer penalties if it is a hit that injures someone. In a Hockey fight, even if you knock someone unconscious, the penalty is still five minutes. As Darth Kirones says: \"the penalty is small\". Too small! DARTH KIRONES THIRD POINT: The Scoring He fails to see two things when saying that goalies in Hockey try harder than goalies in soccer. Just because you do not face as much shots in Soccer does NOT mean, at all, that you are trying less hard. Yes, there was less shots, but, the goalie made all the saves, didn't he? IF the soccer goalie faced more shots, it would have been a more accurate comparison because the soccer Goalie in that game did not have to work very hard to block less shots. That definitely does not mean that if there was more shots he would not have to work very hard though. Another thing. Because there is a lot less defence it is way easier to get shots on net in Hockey, then in Soccer, where there is more defensive players. DARTH KIRONES FOURTH POINT: Hockey is a better team sport Just because there is a shift in people on the ice does not make it more of a \"team sport\". It just means that you have different players on the ice. How does that make it more of a \"team sport\"? And the limit for NHL hockey is 23 players per Club, where as in Premier League Soccer, there is a limit of 25 players at a time. Seems to me there are more \"job opportunities\", as my opponent puts it, in soccer. DARTH KIRONES FIFTH POINT: Diving So my opponent says that he doesn't like people getting hurt. Ok, one more Hypocritical thing. He is cheating for Hockey right? Hockey is one of the most physical and highest contact sport. Well look at this: \"The highest rates of injury occur in sports that involve contact and collisions\"- University of Rochester sports statistics. My opponent might say that hockey players have more protection to prevent them from bug hits. This helps, but not enough. Players are still injured daily from big hits in Hockey. DARTH KIRONES SIXTH POINT: Faster This point is flawed for one major reason. My opponent stated that \"The word \"Longer\" and the word \"Better\" are NOT the same\" If you where a true loyal fan to a soccer or Hockey team, like many sports fanatics are, \"Longer\" and \"Better\" might very well mean the same because fans would love to see there favourite team for longer. This makes going to soccer games more enjoyable. DARTH KIRONES SEVENTH POINT: Promotion of Winter Fitness My opponent states that you don't get the full experience of soccer indoors because you don't have the \"sun shining on your face.\" Soccer does not need the perfect breeze and the amazing sunlight to be able to play. Also, if you wanted to emphasize that Hockey is such a winter sport, then why would you say: \"Just play indoors!\" That ruins your whole first point! If you want Hockey to be a winter sport, then you play outside, utilizing the ice. DARTH KIRONES REBUTTAL: Yes, hockey has unlimited overtime periods, but those very rarely go over 1 extra period, or 20 minutes extra time, and is ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS! Thanks, jacobie1121 References: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com... http://www.fifa.com...","Hockey is a better sport than football. Just because hockey is played in the olympic games doesnt mean that football isnt popular. It isnt played the Olympic games because its an American sport and once again we have been arguing AMERICAN popularity. Also the Stanley Cup is televised just as much as the Superbowl but people just dont watch it as much. Have you considered this, that most of the people who play in the NHL are mostly from outside our country? Because of this, it shows that in the US not many people play hockey over football which is why the popularity is down in the US. Internationally hockey is way more popular than football but once again we are talking about the US. I myself am a hockey fan and enjoy the game because of its toughness and athletism it takes to play the game but to say that it is more popular than football isnt a fair judgement. As for the rule changes that the NFL has been coming too, the league is just trying to limit the amount of head injuries that are causing men to suffer alot of brain damage because of how physical the game of football is. Your right that it is a privelige to play in the NFL but why risk causing life threathing injuries over vicious hits that are completely illegal. To say that it is becoming a \"touch football league\" it is completely un-jusitfied because these head injuries shouldnt be nessessary and jeopardizing the lives of people. There are plenty of hard LEGAL hits in the NFL that show how physical of a game it is and always will be. Also, most of the rule changes in the NFL are just to protect the quarterback which i might say is something a little childish to the quarterbacks and favoring them a little bit but still doesnt take away from still being the most physical sport.","is hockey better than american football I request that voters appreciate that due to the very short round timings of instigator we both have unfortunately forfeited one round each and that neither my opponent nor myself should receive penalty for this since our acts cancel each other out.I shall like to point out that my opponent chose to defend ice hockey as opposed to field hockey (which is definitely what one would assume hockey on its own meant since hockey was originally field only).Nonetheless I shall rebut her points and hope to conclude in a very formal and appropriate manner.My opponent seems to begin justifying hockey's supposed superiority over football by stating that \" In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice.\" This is as if to say that running into a slab of ice is a superior activity than running into a wall of muddy grass. I can assure that the bloodshed and overall damage of the ice is far more gruesome and malignant than the latter unless of course by chance the field happened to have very infested mud (which the well-cleaned professional fields of football do not). Thus this is a rather futile point to raise in favour of hockey as it merely proves the stupidity of ice hockey over football.\"There are no weapons in football.\" This is exactly why it's a safer and superior sport. It is a sport that turns the body into the weapon, one need only master his or her body and then train with it to master football. To master hockey is a far more dangerous and risky ordeal make it far more of a 'who is lucky enough not to get hit?' ordeal than a 'who is the best player?' ordeal.\"In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage.\" Yes and in the ghetto everyone carries a gun. Does this make the ghetto better than the uptown city?\"If a football hits you in the face, your face guard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost.\" This is because American football is a far safer sport played by very risk-averse individuals usually who will go far in life. In hockey there is a huge element of risk that you could literally get your head cracked open or jaw smashed in, in the blink of an eye due to bad luck. Thus it is a far more barbaric and inferior sport in terms of its system of regulations and safety measures.\"if it[the hockey stick] strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die.\" Yes exactly, this is why it is a far more dangerous and less pleasant sport to play, referee and watch.\" Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound.\" That's because American football players want to be safe while training and competing in their sport, not sorry for ever taking it up.\"A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them.\" Because that's exactly what we wants to happen in a sport... Not.\"I could go on but there really is no contest here.\" Then why offer a debate if there's no contest?\"Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.\" And this is exactly why football is the better sport.Do we think that slitting arteries of people open is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.Do we think that smashing someone in the 'right spot' therefore, in essence, committing murder is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.So then tell me why is it that a sport that incorporates both of those risks is deemed the better one? The simple fact is you can't tell me why because there is no reason why.As I said in round one, \"in American football anything is being involved in the sport.\" The brutality in American Football isn't one f danger, it is one represented through the fact that one must wear severely heavy padding in order to avoid the possible injury that could occur. Hockey endorses only shin pads and gum shields. This will not stop the hockey stick hitting you in the 'right spot' to cause a fatal blow and thus is a far inferior and barbaric sport in comparison with the civilised and rational sport of American football.I have refuted all points raised by pro (in fact favouring con's side throughout) and re-iterated my own.I leave it to the voters.","Hockey is better than soccer Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD","At which age should young adults be to play violent sports How do we define violent sports? The word 'violent' is very subjective in and of itself, so how can we define what is violent and what isn't? Suppose we say American football and ice hockey is 'violent'. We must remind ourselves that in both of these sports, all players wear a significant amount of safety gear, which is getting better by the day, and there are many rules in place to prevent severe violence or injury. It is probably better for children playing these sports to break them earlier in their lives- bones will be much quicker to heal in their youth. Because of the safety equipment's prices, many families who play these sports are typically at least in the middle class, and can afford the medical expenses associated with this. If proper procedure is taken medically, such as casts and slings, there is no long-term damage to the bone. Also, at younger ages, kids are slower and have worse hand-eye coordination. As such, it is very unlikely to see severe injuries in younger sports leagues. The danger comes more at the ages my opponent has provided, 12 to 14, where there has been significant athletic and muscle development and kids are faster and stronger than they were. Ultimately, the ages should stand as they are currently.","Hockey should be America's past time. I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.","Other sports have changed rules to make game safer. Dr. David Geier. \"Should MLB ban home plate collisions?\" May 30, 2011: \"changing rules about trying to score on fly balls would not fundamentally change the game. It would eliminate the collision, not the ability to score on fly balls. It would affect a small component of baseball to make it safer. Eliminating fighting in hockey or tackling in football are not equal comparisons, as some have argued. Eliminating chop blocks in football or body checking from behind in hockey are much better comparisons. They are evolutions of the rules in these sports to protect their players while still maintaining the integrity and nature of the sports.\"","NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are \"checked, slashed, etc.\" this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...","is hockey too violent Hokey is a game where you get smashed into walls and your supposed to be ok with that, to keep playing even though you know there was a guy that just floored you is just asking for a fight","Gladiator Battles should be Legal I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. *** Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences. 1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial. In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system. 2. There are dangerous sports allowed My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career. Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions. Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line. 3. Both sides agree with the consequences My opponent will bring such things as \"it's unethical! \" or \"killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime! \" etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening. *** I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. *** Bibliography: [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.correctionalnews.com... [3] . http://www.news4jax.com... , . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [5] . http://video.msnbc.msn.com... [6] . http://www.kwch.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://bleacherreport.com... [9] . http://www.nytimes.com... [10] . http://www.cbc.ca... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] . http://en.wikipedia.org...","Fights to the death in an arena should be legal I need more blood because MMA is not enough, football is a joke, and baseball obviously isn't a sport. Sports are not violent enough. People need entertainment, and the current sports do not provide the proper kind of entertainment this country needs. Uncle Sam is a bloodthirsty warrior! He needs swords and morning stars slicing and crushing skulls. I want to see a bear fight a convict! I need to see this, this country needs it. It's going to be the only thing that will get us out of this recession. Opponent, since we cannot debate this in the Colosseum like real men, to the death, then debate.org will have to do. Instead of me crushing your skull with a war hammer, I will have to destroy any proposition that you bring against me.","At which age should young adults be to play violent sports No, it isn't. That's something that *could* happen, not necessarily what *will* happen. It's a theoretical example. I need proof. Concrete, observational proof that you could show to me of kids getting severely injured in these sports. Since you have failed to provide this proof, I will continue with my contention that it isn't dangerous enough to warrant restriction to younger ages. To the audience, I must reiterate my contention: In these so-called \"violent\" sports, there is no serious harm to the players that could affect them more than temporarily. In football, ice hockey, and other sports a significant amount of safety equipment is worn to make sure these problems don't happen. Furthermore, kids are slower and not as strong as they are in later years, so the risk of serious injury is also reduced by the fact that they aren't moving as fast or with the same amount of force as kids who are going/have gone through puberty. In fact, the real danger is in high-school and in college sports, where we have seen serious concussions severely affect these players for the rest of their lives. However, I must remind the audience that my opponent contends that these sports should be restricted to *youth* leagues, not high-school or college leagues. Thank you for your time, and I urge you vote against this resolution.","is hockey too violent Depends on what you consider too violent.","is hockey better than american football Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.","American Football Fighters The players should be allowed to fight because some teams bribe the referee to call stupid plays and make the other team win. To me thats not fair. So, yes the players should be allowed to fight on the field.","is hockey too violent hockey is not too violent","Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned My opponent has forfeited. I win by default.","At which age should young adults be to play violent sports Theoretically, sure. But I'm asking you if you can find any real-world examples of this. The nose argument is fallacious because in both football and ice hockey players wear helmets with metal face guards.","is hockey too violent Even though the rules prevent it, people getting hit in the head with those sticks even with the helmet could cause some bad whiplash","Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!","is hockey too violent Even with the rule oh having the hockey stick below the waist, by human reaction its very easy to swing the stick high, making injury chance high","Hockey is better than soccer Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don’t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...","Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.","Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows \"Body checking.\" This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean \"no contact.\" There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.","fighting should be banned from the NHL In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: \"Don Sanderson\" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game.\" Simpson: \"I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?\" It\"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it\"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death\"even an accidental death\"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We\"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.","fighting should be banned from the NHL noit shiuod not that is what majes most of the money for the nhl and i perwonaly think that it is very true (your point) but you know that some teen ager died from a slapshot to the neck so why not stip hockey alltogether? NEVER! besides i play hockey and its fun.","Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; \"as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players \" slightly more than one of every five in the league \" are injured.\" These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.","Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.","fighting should be banned from the NHL do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck!","fighting should be banned from the NHL I guess this means I have won science you have forfeited. fighting in hockey should not be banned. that is my final answer. take it or leave it. (you better have taken it. or you better take it! :P )","Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments..."],"string":"[\n \"BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports Thank you for joining the debate. I would now like to take the time to present my first point, Desensitization.believe that if we have violence on TV then that will lead to even more violence. People thought that watching violence on TV would get violence out of their systems but there have been many studies that show that watching violence on TV and being around violence will lead to even more violence. People will slowly start to think that fighting is ok and start fighting other people or letting their children watch and this will go on and on if we don\\\"t abolish all combat sports. look at the world we live in there are stories every day about people fighting and going to the hospital because of injuries or even worse death. If you watch something over and over again than your brain starts to think that it is ok and if people watch violence than their brain starts to think that they do whatever they want and people will start fighting everywhere and this will lead to more injuries, death and people will steal more because they think that they can now knock out a store owner and that would leave a store unsupervised. If we ban All combat sports than Most of this fighting will go away, If people do not see people fighting on TV than they will stop because the main reason they are fighting is because of watching it on TV. There have been studies were if a crowd of people do something than the test subject will do the same, so if we ban all combat sports than people will stop fighting because they won\\\"t see people on TV fighting.\",\n \"Basketball is better than hockey First I'll address Con's points, then I'll add three more in favor of bball, the superior sport. \\\"1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals.\\\"Basketball is faster. There is nothing more exciting than a cool basket, pass, or other play made, which happens all the time. Yes, this is real life. It may seem to be too cool, but reality is intense. \\\"2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like \\\"ball is life\\\" for basketball.\\\"In my personal internet travels I have seen many a hockey player say \\\"hockey is life\\\", or \\\"GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!1!!!\\\"\\\" Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like \\\"brick city\\\" or \\\"biscuits\\\"\\\"Trash talking is in the nature of basketball, and it is part of honored baller culture to say these things. I belive that this part of the game is extremely influental and hockey players could learn something from it. Also, hockey players fight while ballers use words.My Points1) Basketball players have cool jerseys to wear aroundMany people wear these jerseys and become a part of baller culture2) There's a good basketball animeThis reason alone should be enough to win the debate. Watch Kuroko no Basket and you will become a baller. Note: source of picture is not the same as other real life image3) Shaqtin' a foolI refer you to Javail McGee and Shaqtin' a fool.;\",\n \"Competitive spoprts Should kids be allowed to play competitive sports yes or no?\",\n \"Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man. With running, boxing is the purest form of sport. All sport is about testing the human body and reactions against others. Boxing does this in the most simple and direct way possible. There is no point trying to deny our human nature - man is an aggressive animal and sports provide a safe outlet for that aggression. Contact sports such as rugby, American Football or Ice Hockey can also be brutal. Society was much less violent sixty or seventy years ago when children were often taught to box at school. That way they learned to control their aggression and to keep violence for the ring.\",\n \"Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers My turn it is. Come at me bro.\\\"Watching 130 pound weaklings job for 2 and a half hours just to make the game 0-0 or 1-1 isn't a classy sport, its a waste of time.\\\"1. And debating about soccer on the internet is a better use of time? :P2. It's a classy sport because we soccer fans appreciate technique and skill above flashy lights and big numbers. We can truly appreciate a sport for what it is: a sport to be enjoyed for it's full duration because of what it is. Soccer is not for those who can't pay attention to something for less than two seconds. Sorry, imabench :PAs to respond to his pictures, so that's how Grandpa passed away....watching golf. Fair enough. Let's look through his proposed plan.1) Metal armor? What year is it, 400 BC?Metal armor is so outdated. Running around like little pretend knights in a game of LARP isn't going to make the sport more entertaining: it would make it harder to watch. Your plan is flawed.2) Anything goes? Hang on a second......didn't you just say below a couple of rules that we couldn't break out into fights? WTF! I call bullsh*t.3) Steel toed shoes? How does this fix fake injuries?!If anything, this gives players a feasible excuse to flop on the ground to grab the call, claiming that they were \\\"injured by the steel toe kicking the back of their shin. Your plan is flawed again, good sir.4) Immediate medical care? Hold on...Didn't you say that all players do is fake being injured? So why would they need medical care to begin with? I'll go with this, just not the rest of your plan.5) Goalies get to use tasers...Yet I can't get in a fistfight with the prick forward who insulted my mother. Uh huh. That works. Moreover, your attempt to preserve some of the class that soccer has falls short here, as shooting someone with a taser has absolutely no class. It's as classy as farting in the middle of a dead silence at your family dinner table during Thanksgiving. Inb4 you say that's classy.6) Full contact?Yet I still can't get into a fight? For the second time, WTF!7) No all out fighting? You whore.Just when things were starting to get interesting, you pull the fine print out on me and waggle your finger like my fourth grade teacher. What a total killjoy. Which overlooks the fact that it contradicts half of the rules on here, but hey, sh*t happens.8) Renaming teams?Sure, I'm down with this.9) American teams only.Sure then. But you never specify which gender, which means that both male and female soccer teams are included under this rule. Let's explain why this idea is sh*t-poor with this in mind.First, this is what girl soccer players look like. .... Now that we see that any straight guy wants to keep girls soccer around, here's why his plan is going to end girls soccer.1) No chick wants to run around in metal armor.2) No chick wants to run around in ANY kind of armor.3) No chick wants to get shot by a taser.4) While chicks fighting may be really hot, chicks don't like fighting, and thus won't join.5) When chicks get hurt, the world stops until they're seen to. If you try to ignore them, they get pissed off and you end up sleeping on the couch.Your turn pro.\",\n \"Fighting Your previous statement is just absurd. You just said that you agreed that you should tell someone, but it depends on how serious the fight is. You then said if it is fist fighting, that no one should get involved. Are you kidding me? Do you realize no matter what type of fight it is, that in school or even outside of school, fighting is unacceptable? You can get arrested for fighting, and you can go to court for it. Even if it is in school. In my school, multiple children have already gone to court for fist fighting in the school locker pods or cafeteria. No matter what, they will get in trouble. So why let them fight, when it is just obvious that someone will be seriously hurt, and the charges will just be more severe. Lets use an example. A fight starts in the cafeteria, but right before they start throwing punches, someone tells on them and a teacher breaks it up. What would happen then? They probably wouldn't even get suspended. Now, look at what happens if the teacher didn't break it up. They start throwing punches, and one of them walks away, having lost three teeth, and his entire body being bruised/broken. What would happen then? They would both get in severe trouble for fighting, and they would probably be spending time in jail. This is why no matter what type of fight it is, an adult should be informed right away, so action can be taken.\",\n \"Should WWE Be Banned That's exactly what I mean, I say it should be banned because the fighters are paid to beat each other up and act like they hate each other\",\n \"Should there be Football at Mount Saint Charles I agree with you that football would be great sports for kids to make friends and have fun. But I think that we should spend that kind of money, only if we have, for hockey team. For example, the arena of Mount is wicked old and antique, which looks like that it will be dilapidated soon enough. So if we will have enough money to buy all the equipments needed to play football. It would be better off to spend that money for hockey to re build the arena or remodel the area at least. And i also think that Mount should more focus on spreading the Mount hockey team to other states instead of just Ma and RI. I see the big potential for Mount to be literally considered the best hockey team in the Nation. However, I think, if Mount has money to spend on Football, that they should spend that money to expand the prestigious of Mount Hockey team to all around the world.\",\n \"Hockey vs Soccer The con recognizes that the pro reserves the right to change the the criteria of the debate as long as the pro provides them within Round 2 and no further. My opponent's argument against hockey falls for 3 reasons:1) He fails to prove causality. Salaries may be dependent on other factors.2) The figures presented (\\\"40k up to 100k\\\") are wrong. Christiano Ronaldo was paid 15.645 million USD last year.3) Soccer is empirically more dangerous than hockey. Forces are up to 160% greater in soccer.GLHF.\",\n \"That UfC should be banned. UfC should be banned because all it is, is people beating each other up. It is very dangerous and they could get seriously hurt.\",\n \"Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed \\\"Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason.\\\" Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. \\\"With the allowance of \\\"human cock fighting\\\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \\\"sportsmanship\\\". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. \\\"Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?\\\" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? \\\"Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence.\\\" I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer Time for the rebuttals :) Starting at the top Longer games Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Break times/ toughness Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Easiness to learn Soccer might be easy to learn, but that takes the talent level out of it. Everybody knows how to run and kick a ball. It is very simple. But not everyone knows how to skate or or how to stickhandle. The fact that not a lot of people can do this makes it even more fascinating to watch. You are watching people do things that not everyone can do. Injuries Hockey might have a lot of injuries, but that is just part of the sport. That is how you know that hockey is much tougher then soccer. Occasionally you get players like Todd Bertuzzi who are way to violent ( i guess that's how i could put it without using colorful language :) ) those players are punished with suspensions from the games ( sometimes the rest of the season, and on one occasion a guy was kicked out of the NHL) and heavy fines. Take Shawn Thornton for example. He was suspended for 15 games ( should of been longer) for coming up behind Brooks Orpik, knocking him to the ice and punching him. (knocking him out). He also forfeited $84,615.45 in salary. Faking an injury is worst then the real thing. When you fake an injury you are wasting every ones time, and not to mention making a full of yourself. Goalies It takes more talent and accuracy for a hockey player to score a goal then it does a soccer player. Goalies are very flexible and also take dives. Just watch a game and you will see. They often go into the butterfly position which is like a split, and occasionally go down into a full split. Goalies have a lot of skills ( and guts) to be able to stop a puck moving at 95-118 mph. Plus being able to keep an eye on the small puck and knowing were it is every second of the game. A lot of hockey players use black tape so it is harder for the goalie or any other players to see the puck on the stick. Soccer goalies do not move that much either. And the ball is much easier to spot then a puck. http://espn.go.com...\",\n \"Hockey is better than football Argument #4: Hockey is more difficult to play Hockey is waaaay more challenging to play then football, especially ice hockey. First of all you got to learn how to skate. Then you hare to learn how to pass with a stick and all of that stuff. Then you have to get into even more shape so you don't tire out in the game and then you have to play 3-4 times a week! You also have to travel and practice. Imagine how sore you would be! Football may be tough but hockey is way tougher! And what if you get involved in a hockey fight? You could get beat up a bit adding to your troubles and all of that gear you have to wear! That is 20 pounds extra! All of these factors add up to make Hockey one of the most difficult sports out there. Argument #5: Hockey is much more worldwide \\\"The Arab Cup of Ice Hockey was intended to be an annual international ice hockey competition involving teams from Arab nations. The inaugural tournament took place on the 16th to 20 June 2008 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. A 2009 competition was planned to be held in Kuwait City, Kuwait but was cancelled.\\\" Imagine that. Arabs playing ice hockey in the boiling sun. If you have been to the middle east you would know how freaking hot it is. http://en.wikipedia.org... Check that out. All of those countries play ice hockey. But wait! There are even more forms of hockey then just plain old ice hockey! Even more countries play different forms of hockey! Even more. Hockey is an Olympic sport and football is not, making hockey even more international! Well, I hope you post something. DarthKirones\",\n \"Hockey is the best sport in the world Hockey players are not always getting charged like football players. Also who wants to watch a ball get kicked around for a couple of hours or have stoppages all the time in football, watch a ball get thrown at a net or hit back in forth over the net. Hockey is very exciting to both play and watch.\",\n \"Ice-skating should be illegal in the United States. My opponents \\\"arguments\\\" 1. I did not know that until you told me. For your information, I have a sister who has skated for 5 years. I skated for 5 years at one point. At no point did someone come up to me and ask me for meth. At no point did anyone offer me meth. And just because a name is slang for a drug, does not directly relate to it being subliminal messaging. Coca-Cola is not subliminally telling people to take cocaine. 2. Ok, perhaps I took this argument in the wrong way. Here's a better response: Something being cold has no reason to be outlawed. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Ice is cold. Should we outlaw water since ice is frozen water? According to you, we should. 3. My opponent still has provided no evidence. My opponent merely says: Watch the tapes. However, I do not have access to those tapes. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as the judges judge on their own preferences, and how they think it should be awarded. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are idiots. My argument: Banning ice-skating would be detrimental to society. Here's my back up argumentation. 1. Ice skating is a huge industry. It not only encompasses figure skating, but it also includes hockey. Both sports are huge industries. If we were to ban ice skating, we would lose a huge portion of the sports industry. There is money in ice skating. There is money in hockey. Banning ice skating would create a loss of all those opportunities to make money, and for an industry to flourish. Therefore since less money would be flowing, the economy would be harmed. Therefore, society is harmed, since if the economy is doing worse, then society is directly hurt. 2. Many people look up to athletes, including ice skaters. If ice skating is banned, then these children who look up to people like Michelle Kwan will be hurt. Therefore, it is detrimental to society, because if the kids are hurt, the population is hurt. I am equally excited to see my opponent prove that society will be fine without ice-skating.\",\n \"we should ban boxing as a sport professionally 1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.\",\n \"Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Boxing teaches discipline. It would teach kids to remain humble. But you stated the bullies will be able to box their opponents, and this is where you are wrong. The student who have a problem with each other will not get the chance to box each other. The closest they will get it a sparring session which are heavily controlled and safe. There is no better bond you can form with someone than when you are preparing another for a fight. So the people you have a chance to spar with will actually become some of your closest friends. You make the statement of \\\"The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it\\\" as it the bully will always be a stronger force. But like I said, if the bully is not a boxer, and the victim is, chances are the bully won't risk the embarrassment of possibly getting beat if the victim chooses to retaliate. But vise-versa, if the bully is the boxer and the victim isn't I mentioned how boxing does teach respect. As a fighter myself, we do not see ourselves as a force. We know what it's like to have someone stronger and better trained go against us, and that makes us humble. We would never put someone in the situation of making them feel weak. But the possibility of that happening is still there. But just like any school sport, there would be penalties to such action. Maybe if one of the boxers does become a bully, he is done for the season. That would motivate the athletes to not bully, or get in trouble at all.\",\n \"Hockey is the best sport in the world Hockey needs a lot of skill and it has a high physical component to the game. Any debate will have some opinion in it. Hockey is the best sport cause of what I previously mentioned. This debate was supposed to be opiniated.\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer 1.) Embellishment - If you are entire argument is based on a video made by some desperate guy determined to undermine the GREATNESS of Soccer using some archaic video footage of nondescript teams. I dont know what to say. I base my arguments on fact and the fact is that these days players who act like that are penalised. Here is the proof--- (there goes the argument on \\\"embellishment\\\". ) 2) Accuracy - This is a video of a 40 yard kick in the corner of the goal protected by a goalkeeper well above 6'3 with an entire wall in front of him . 40 yards almost the 2/3 of the length of a hockey rink. that's almost like an Ice hockey goalie scoring from his half. I doubt if you could show me a video of a ice hockey player make the puck swerve in the air from 40 yards out. 3) Toughness - Since you seem so hell bent on the toughness of this game let's analyze this a bit a) Adaptability - Soccer is played in rain , storm , snow and sweltering heats of brazilian maracana with temp of 42 centigrade, Does a Ice hockey player go through the same , No its always over ice , they would probably faint in any other condition. b) Endurance - How can one compare a game of 20 min halves of ice hockey with 45 min halves of hight tempo game of soccer. MLS in US is a very pathetic example of soccer , with sub standard players and worst style of play. If one wants to know how fast this game can be one should at least see barcelona FC in action, which would pale any. Yes any ice hockey game in pace and tempo. c) Ice hockey players wearing virtually a full body armor is not a contact sport, its sheer hypocrisy. I mean why have any protection if they are so tough play just the way actual rugby players slug it out. Rugby is a contact sport which in true essence has tough men not ice hockey. And if my purpose of watching sports is to see tough men i would watch boxing, judo , taekwondo , wrestling not ice hockey. The small minority of people who watch ice hockey watch it for their skill on ice not toughness. Some more facts which would make the position amply clear 1) Soccer largest watched sports in the world , World cup soccer most watched event on planet after olympics 2) Soccer clubs richest in the world more than NFL, NHL, Baseball etc etc. (If you can show me stats to disapprove this I would concede) PS - Ensure caution in choosing topic , either put \\\"Ice Hockey is better than soccer \\\"or accept both . Field hockey is still more popular than any Ice hockey.\",\n \"hockey vs soccer Collin your stupid. I'm saying in hockey you don't get a breather but in soccer you do. there for forcing the game to come to a stop and not allowing the game to go forward. you didn't even debate a signal point in this debate there for giving up the round to me and letting me win!\",\n \"My Opponent Will Lose This Debate \\\"eVeRy LiNe MuSt StArT wItH a LoWeR cAsE lEtTeR, aNd My OpPoNeNt CaN cHoSe As MaNy LiNeS aS hE/ sHe WiShEs.\\\" mY oPpOnEnT's ReSoLuTiOn Is AmBiGuOuS, sEeMiNgLy StAtInG iN tHe AbOvE sTaTeMeNt tHaT tHe CaPiTaLiZaTiOn RuLe ApPlIeS tO eAcH lInE iNdIvIdUaLlY. i PoSiT tHaT bEcAuSe It Is AmBiGuOuS, iT sHoUlD bE lEfT tOtHe VoTeR's To DeCiDe If It QuAlIfIeS aS aN inFrAcTiOn. In ReSpOnSe To My HaNdWaViNg; mY NuMbEr Of DeBaTeSiS IrReLeVaNt, BeCaUsE i CoUlD hAvE jUsT aS mUcH dEbAtInG eXpErIeNcE aS mY oPpOnEnT oUtSiDe Of ThIs SiTe. FuRtHeR, ExPeRiEnCe Is IrReLeVaNt To ThE vErItY oF aN iDeA. sAyInG yOu'Re BeTtEr LoOkInG tHaN mE iS IrReLeVaNt, AnD aN iNsUlT, MaKiNg It An Ad-HoMiNeM iNsUlT. tEaChInG cHuCk NoRrIs ThE rOuNd HoUsE kIcK iS iRrElEvAnT tO oUr DiScUsSiOn, NoR iS iT pOsSiBlE sInCe He'S dEpIcTeDuSiNg ThE rOuNd HoUsE kIcK iN tHe MoViE bReAkEr! BrEaKeR! (d) WhIcH wAs MaDe In 1977, 10 YeArS bEfOrE yOu ClAiM tO hAvE bEeN bOrN (oN yOuR pRoFiLe, WhIcH i PrEsUmE iS a ReAsOnAbLe SoUrCe SiNcE yOu UsEd MiNe AgAiNsT mE).p1 Is UnPrOvAbLe By NaTuRe. YoU cOuLd HaVe EaSiLy HaD a HeArT aTtAcK, cAuSiNg YoU tO fOrFeIt EvErY rOuNd, Or SoMeOnE cOuLd HaVe HaCkEd YoUr CoMpUtEr AnD VeRbAlLy FoRfEiTeD fOr YoU, rEsUlTiNg In My WiN, eTc.p2 Is CoMpLeTeLy SuBjEcTiVe.\",\n \"Hockey is a better sport than football. Football and hockey both need a high amount of stamia in order to be successful on the field and on the ice. Football and hockey use a high amount of stamia at different times of a game. For example, a football play of high contact lasts about 4-5 seconds. During that amount of time, because you have to react so quickly on every given play, you lose breath and arent breathing regularly than you might be doing in a different sport. You may get a ten to 20 second break between plays but after that you have to go back to action. To continue that for a long 5-7 drive is very tasking on your body and you need to be mentally tough to do it because the other team is feeling the same way as you are but its who wants it more. With hockey, you have to continue playing about 2 minutes then a new line comes in and you have a long period of breath. So your endurance and stamia are clearly a big part in football as well as hockey and just as important as hockey but are used completely differently.\",\n \"Collisions are exciting and fun to watch. Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons. Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves. It’s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes. Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so. Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport. Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy. Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.\",\n \"Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd or EverlastingMomentResolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks, semantics4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384.5.Thanks.\",\n \"Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Thank you for your argument. Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument. 1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of \\\"human cock fighting\\\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \\\"sportsmanship\\\". 2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena? 3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence. 4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.\",\n \"The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com...\",\n \"That UfC should be banned. I think in this statement \\\"but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport\\\" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as \\\"blood sports.\\\" In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and \\\"damage\\\" the other team. Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where \\\"people are intentionally causing harm to each other.\\\" If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what \\\"causing harm to each other\\\" means.\",\n \"Legalize Fighting My position is that, as long as it is consentual and the persons involved are not impaired (by drugs, alcohol, or some form of mental handicap) when making the decision, all forms of human on human fighting should be legal.\",\n \"International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows: 1 – Public Opinion My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling – that's all scripted and choreographed – it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way). 2 – Violence It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. . http://www.imdb.com... Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them. 3 – Red Cards I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners – any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning. 4 – Grudges My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him: . http://www.freewebs.com... 5 – Penalties are thrilling. I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer Time for rebuttals First argument The cost and the simplicity does not make soccer better than hockey. Hockey is a sport of talent. Not everyone can skate or stick handle, but everyone can run and kick a ball. Second argument The pace of the game has a big factor in entertainment. Would you sit and watch a game of any sport were the players just walked around slowly? That would not be a good sport to watch. While you talk about a man dribbling past 4 guys, a hockey player can do just the same with a puck. Have you ever watched someone split the defense before? Hockey players also display the positional awareness of there team mates and opposing players while keeping pace with both them and the puck. Hockey players are the fastest people on two feet while on the ice. Hockey players also demonstrate skill on the ice during a game while also adding in contact, making more of a challenge. Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Third argument The video is just showing a few clips of what constantly happens during a soccer game. Hockey players do not embellish because that gives them penalties. Soccer players embellish a lot. Fourth argument This one is simple. Large net small goalie, not many goals. Small net large goalie, still more goals then soccer. Simple as that. Fifth argument Have you ever watched the winter classics or the other outdoor games hockey players have been in? They play in a lot of snow. Hockey is mostly played in doors so they are not really exposed to this weather. That makes it better for fans. You do not have to worry about games being canceled/rescheduled because of weather. Sixth argument The equipment does not protect you from everything. There are gaps in the equipment. And getting hit as hard as they are, the equipment just simply absorbs some of the power behind the hit, but it will still hurt ( trust me) when players fight they take off there gloves ( throw down) helmets are not allowed to be taken off, but most of the time they come off with the power of a hit. Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Seventh argument Out of bounds rarely happens during a hockey game. Getting the game back in motion happens in a matter of seconds. http://video.nhl.com...\",\n \"Women could not compete in the vast majority of male dominated sports Before anyone starts arguing about this issue, you must understand I'm referring to popular American sports such as football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. If you're going to argue \\\"sports\\\" like figure skating or gymnastics, don't waste your time. I created this debate because this is a popular issue that many people do not agree with me on. I'd like for someone to attempt to defend the opposing viewpoint, but I firmly believe men and women's sports should, for many obvious reasons, remain separated.\",\n \"Depending where you are in the world, some of the rules do appear brutal In the Pride organisation, a hugely successful operation in Japan in the late 90s continuing into the 21st Century, foot stomps were allowed, as were soccer kicks to the head. This is indeed brutal and probably beyond the limits of what Mixed Martial Arts should condone.\",\n \"International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. Contention 1: Public opinion I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match. Contention 2: Violence My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible. Contention 3: Red Cards. My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument. - I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive. Contention 4: Grudges My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players. \\\"Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.\\\" - False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.\",\n \"Playing a Catcher in Baseball is Harder than Playing Goalie in Hockey This is also my first argument and good luck to my opponent. I think that be a goalie is tougher because of all the shots you have to take, and how crowded the area in front of the net can get, especially on an empty net. Hockey is also a physical sport and the goalie needs to help defend and stick up for his teammates. Goalies are also most of the time captain of the team.\",\n \"NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.\",\n \"Fighting Your examples are very persausive. But I still believe that noone should get involved. They know that there will be consequences for The fight and get they still put The will forward to conduct the fight. If they are willing to fight then they have to be willing to face The consequences. And yes someone will get hurt in a fight that is the point. That is why teenagers or adults do fight. It is up to them to decide what happens in their life and nobody should interfere. If they do get into a fight and someone does get seriously hurt then The person who caused it will go to jail. There are multiple reasons why people fight and if you don't know the reason stay ot of it. Other wise you will be involved and then their friends will come after you. It is just simplier to fight them on The spot then have to worry about them trying to do something more drastic. If they are going to fight let them. You don't need to save someone because you don't know what they did to instagate this fight. It is their choice to fight not somebody elses.\",\n \"THW ban boxing I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, \\\"My team\\\" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate. First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U. S. , though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, \\\"Boxing should be on the top. .. \\\" And in golf, it says, \\\"This is really a sport, but. .. \\\" Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost [3]. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked! !! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing. More people As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con. My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, \\\"Even a bad law is a law. \\\" The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of \\\"safety\\\". That is ridiculous. And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. My last argument is really a basic question. .. What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5]. So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably. This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports. I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you. My sources[1] . http://www.thetoptens.com...[2] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.bcmj.org...[5] . https://www.google.fr... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Sorry for the delay. Argument #3: The scoring The year is 2010 and the world cup is blazing off in South Africa. Come June 25th is a match between Honduras, two OK-level teams, and Honduras shoots TWICE in 90 minute, Switzerland shoots t the net five times. and whats the score? 0-0. In a hockey game the average amount of shots is 30 and yet the score is almost ALWAYS higher. What does this say about soccer? That the players are slacking? I think it says that the goalies of Hockey are trying harder as I see no beauty in a 0-0 game. Now. Jacobie1121 may say the goalies in soccer do work hard and that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. To answer the first rebuttal by repeating myself. SEVEN SHOTS TO 30. A goalie has to block 15 goals wearing tons of equipment but a soccer goalie has to block 2-5 goals with just a special goalie shirt and pants but yet the one who wears less and has to block less is the harder worker? No. Simply no. The second rebuttal would be that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. There are more shots in hockey, allowing there to be more opportunities for goals. Whether it's a close miss or an epic goal those shots are what brings us to our feet. Argument #4: Hockey is a better team sport In a hockey game the team is constantly changed around allowing for there to be more job opportunities and time to play while in soccer it's almost always always the same players. Because there are more skilled players in a lineup there is a greater chance of an exciting game because the talent changes quickly. Different players play with different styles which can be both bad and good. And we all love a good game-changer or game-destroyer! Argument #5: Diving I don't like to see others get hurt. But I HATE people who fake getting hurt for their own benefit. They are athletes. And being fair is a code that all athletes should follow. Why should reward those who fake? They get another player in trouble to give him/her a penalty or to get the person who was framed kicked out. Imagine you were a respectable player in soccer and someone pulled a dive claiming you tripped them. Would you say at least he did not get actually hurt? Or would you mention how unfair that is? The answer is obvious. I have no tolerance for cheaters whatsoever. I include a video about diving to see the sheer quantity of these fakers. I'm ready for your response\",\n \"Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Will it promote a \\\"beat the crap out of everyone\\\" lifestyle? A fighter can only excel in the sport with proper discipline and respect for themselves and others. May I ask for a reliable source for the 52.2% statistic you brought up? Just because someone knows how to fight, doesn't mean they walk around fighting everyone. Nature vs nurture. Your life and the way you treat others is completely dependent upon your upbringing and your lifestyle. Lately we have seen several football players involved in violent crimes including domestic violence, child abuse, and even murder. But we don't associate this violent behavior in correlation with the sport of football. So if we don't blame football for those violent crimes, why would we blame boxing? Maybe we should take football out of schools as well. Maybe we should take basketball as well since Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What I'm saying is, the violent behavior of some, doesn't mean we should take the opportunities given in boxing away from today's youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and even molestation are not brought upon because of boxing. That stuff all happens outside the ring, by people who have never fought a day in their life. It is brought on by the way you are raised, and your own mental state. You cannot blame a controlled sport for the act of people all around the world. With all this being said I thank you for having this debate with me over the past few days. I do believe boxing should be allowed for today's youth as an extra curricular activity in today's schools. It teaches discipline and control, and it allows students to create a closer bond that they could not get anywhere else.\",\n \"Impromptu 7 2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. Concur. I accept the PRO side of this topic. C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular. According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com... C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days. According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org... C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events. This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love. CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity? Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one! P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL.\",\n \"Dog fighting should be aloud Thank you for the debate. According to animal laws, there should be a humane treatment of animals, and that is why dog fighting should not be allowed. As a sophisticated society, we Americans do not force other creatures to harm themselves for profit entertainment. We kill them from nessecity, not barbaristic fun. http://www.americanhumane.org...\",\n \"Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Some level of violence is called for in baseball. Just because most plays in baseball do not involve contact does not mean that no plays should involve contact. It has been a part of the game for decades, so it is false to argue that it is not part of the game, or to assert that baseball is not a contact sport at all. There is also a clear difference between violence that is intended to injure an opponent—for example, in a boxing match or an ice hockey fight—and physical contact that is aimed at a valid objective, such as scoring a run. A beanball is not a way to achieve a valid objective. In addition, a beanball is much more dangerous than a collision at home plate. A beanball has resulted in a fatality at an MLB game[1]; no home-plate collision has even come close. [1] “Beaned by a Pitch, Ray Chapman Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1920, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sports/year_in_sports/08.17.html.\",\n \"Moderm MMA has rules as opposed to the former no-holds-barred style of fighting Modern MMA has over 30 rules and is sanctioned by state athletic commissions all over the USA and Canada. It is no longer the brutal blood-sport that it once was when it was first intruduced in the USA. MMa is also considered safer than boxing because of the implementation of the new rules.Gone are the days of hair pulling, groin punching and head stomping. Brute force is no longer a factor as it was,hence, strategy and knowlege of anatomy and kinetics is a determining factor. These new rules not only protect the fighters, but they also protect the sport. 1. Butting with the head. 2. Eye gouging of any kind. 3. Biting. 4. Hair pulling. 5. Fish hooking. 6. Groin attacks of any kind. 7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. 8. Small joint manipulation. 9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. 10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. 11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. 12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. 13. Grabbing the clavicle. 14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. 15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. 16. Stomping a grounded opponent. 17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel. 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. 19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area. 20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent. 21. Spitting at an opponent. 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. 23. Holding the ropes or the fence. 24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. 25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break. 26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee. 27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat. 28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee. 29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. 30. Interference by the corner. (UFC web)\",\n \"NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Here is how hockey is mentally challenging, first of all hand to eye coordination , knowing were to pass to plus a lot of criticism. Also when you get checked , slashed ,ect in hockey you not only need physical strength you need mental strength. Finally you need mental strength to keep playing well, even if your team is losing badly.\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer The reasons which have been enlisted are the Speed and Toughness or the level of contact allowed.I am a bit appalled at the choice of the two. Firstly the topic is Hockey is better than soccer. Where as my opponent fails to give legitimacy to the game of field hockey which is more popular and widespread, rather he chose to focus all his attention to Ice hockey. I don't want to get into semantics but Hockey is a much broader term which encompasses both forms and hence ignoring one for the other is unjustified. Secondly the quality of the game is never judged solely on the pace of the game. The parameters are the level of skill required , technical ability, team cohesion, simplicity and the high stakes involved. A spectator gets his money's worth while witnessing the sheer wizardry of Lionel Messi as he dribbles past 4-5 opposition players before putting the ball into the goal. While doing so he displays the positional awareness of both his teammates and opposition players, moving the ball at pace , performs evasive maneuvers, makes several judgments almost simultaneously. If this is not the what displays peak of human ability then I do not know what might. Similarly when Cristiano Ronaldo takes a free kick from 40 yards out , he kicks the ball with strength at specific angle which makes the ball swerve at pace before hitting the back of the net , leaving the goalkeeper dismayed and the spectator amazed. This is what elevates football from being just a game to a religion a faith. And talking of pace Borussia Dortmund forward Pierre emerick aubameyang clocked faster than WR sprinter Usain bolt over a 40 yard stretch. I would love to see an Ice hockey player attempt such a feet on foot . Thirdly Soccer is not a contact sport it is a game played in the mind and executed with skill on the field. There is no scope of contact in this sport hence it is looked upon severely by the referee. Ice hockey players have elaborate paraphernalia to make this a contact sport. Yet contusion , lacerations , concussions, broken bones are regular part of it. We do not know how many promising careers might have prematurely ended because of a rash tackle in hockey rink. Moreover judging a game just because it is not tough enough and players avoid injuries is just a bit sadistic. I recommend Boxing if someone is so inclined towards manning up, let the skill prevail on the field and not brute force.\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer YAY! THE FUUUUN PART. Ok. Here: I would like to point out that you did not refute all of my points. “Hockey is a faster sport.” (the whole point) Pensfan states facts about how it is literally faster moving. Alright, I agree, hockey is faster, however, that does not make it better. In fact, it makes it worse! Faster players mean harder collisions. Imagine two players, going “over 30 mph” (Pensfan’s figures.) That is a 60 mile collision. Enough to knock them both onto the hard ice, and that could possibly give them serious injuries. Concussion? Possible. Broken bones? Possible. Blood? Almost guaranteed. Where as in soccer, again I will use your figures, the collision would be two “20 mph” people colliding. Maybe make them stumble? Fall? But no broken bones, no concussion, and maybe a tiny bit of blood. That’s all. Also, a stumble on to grass is cushioned, but a fall onto hard, hard ice, is already enough you give you a concussion. Faster pucks mean obviously harder hits if the puck hits you. I admit, a soccer ball can hit you hard and MIGHT cause an injury. If a puck hits you though, again your figure, at “105 mph”, that is SURE to give you an injury. Take a peek at this video: OOF! The guy even has a visor on. That shows that in hockey, they need protection from all the flying pucks. But that protection doesn’t even work properly! Lastly, if the play is moving around so fast, it is hard to track that extremely fast puck. Imagine trying to follow the puck from here: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Hard Eh? Toughness from round 2: “A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world.” COMPLETELY FALSE! Here is evidence that ESPN did the study and said that “he toughest sport in the world is . . .Boxing.” Source? Here: http://sports.espn.go.com... My opponent is LYING! So judges, this should be enough evidence as it is. BUT, I shall continue. Toughness is not always good. Remember we are debating the best sport in general, not just the professional version of it. It Hockey, I agree, you need to be tougher, but is that a good thing? If you have to be durable, then that kinda shuts down the door for the people who are not tough enough doesn’t it? So if the professionals are tough, that doesn’t mean everyone is strong to absorb a check does it? Uh….you are Pro, right? You have the point about hard Hockey is. For those who are 4, learning to play, easier is way better. If it is harder it narrows the window for playing hockey a lot for only the people who are the strongest and the best. Pretty narrow, eh? Toughness from round 3: Soccer players usually play 45 minutes in a row while hockey players go off and on in shifts of 60 seconds. Soccer fields are bigger and and are not on ice, making the running bit much more difficult. “A large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles” Tackles and spiked shoes are quite painful, so soccer players are durable as well. To doubt the toughness of soccer players is intellectually dishonest. “Embellishment” Diving, really? http://bleacherreport.com... That is 15 different dives in hockey. Ever heard of Claude Lemieux? A little outdated, but still hilarious. Players dive in both soccer and hockey. Deal with it. People cheat all the time, hockey, soccer, debates, board games, cheating is no reason to say one sport is better than another. Accuracy: May I point out that Hockey players use a stick that has been designed to be as accurate as possible, while soccer players only use their feet? If hockey players spent their time kicking a puck then we could compare the two, but the whole purpose of the hockey stick IS TO BE ACCURATE! It is almost rigged. Time: Alright, fine perhaps most soccer games are longer than hockey games, but in the NHL playoffs if the game is 0-0 then the game will continue for as long as it needs to until a goal is scored, meaning that the LONGEST HOCKEY GAME IS LONGER THAN THE LONGEST SOCCER GAME. Also, imagine you are a fan of Soccer, or a fan of Hockey. Would you rather get the average game time of 90 minutes of watching your favorite team or would you rather have less time watching your favorite team. What’s more, you pay money for tickets. It’s better value for you ticket to see a longer game. Scorring: Again, I agree with you, there are more goals in hockey, but hockey goals are worth less than soccer goals. Why? It’s easier to score in hockey than it is to score in soccer. Another example is racing. There are more passes in indie races than F1, but F1 passes are more valuable. Skill: Um, no. Hockey players use a tool. IT’S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK. Soccer is difficult as well, I mean, on average soccer players run 7 miles in agame! That takes alot of skill. Out of Bounds. “Averages Offsides: 16 Icings: 9 Goals: 5 Penalties: 5 TV Timeouts: 12 Incidental stoppages: 34 (non-penalized skirmishes, puck leaving rink, puck frozen, etc)” That is a good amount of stoppages. Do remember that since according to you soccer games are longer, which means more stoppages. Alright, I am very tired, and a little lazy, but I think I have done a good job. Why we have won: We have provided sufficient evidence for our side We have successfully wrecked his points. He had false evidence. THANKS, DDD VOTE CON References (for the whole debate) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fifa.com...... https://www.youtube.com...; https://answers.yahoo.com...\",\n \"You should vote for PRO in the topic, \\\"The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.\\\" Start arguing in the 1st round, BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2.\",\n \"What's worse: Getting hit in the hand by a hockey puck or punching a solid oak door Who the hell would punch a door\",\n \"Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a \\\"Team Sport\\\". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a \\\"Team Sport\\\", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for \\\"faking\\\". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT\\\"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :)\",\n \"Tennis is better than hockey Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving.\",\n \"The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens. The Boston bruins in their final postseason appearance this season against the Montreal Canadians was the cheapest team in hockey. They even turned normally good natured, hard working people like Jerome Iginla into cheap shotting pigs. But there is other people who big to differ and say that that's just how they play. As Boston may be the biggest team in the league, but that does not give them any excuse to cheap shot anybody. Just because you get mad you do not have the right to hurt other player and potentially end their hockey careers. The Boston bruins players were squirting water bottles and starting fights. If your a thirteen year old then that's fine to do harmless things like that. But when its your job to keep your cool and to show respect to your opponents. I would also like to add that they cannot take what they're giving. Ever time that they would get hit. They'd act like every time that a hit happened on them, it was the dirtiest thing ever, but if the equivalent was to happen to the Canadians, its a clean hit everytime. And to put the cherry on top, Milan lucic cant even say good series to his opponents. He has to make threats to their life and get them worried about their life. I mean cmon. Thats a new low i haven't seen before. But what are you goanna do if your dealing with the cheapest team in hockey.\",\n \"Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools CON has forfeited yet another round. I extend all arguments.\",\n \"What's worse: Getting hit in the hand by a hockey puck or punching a solid oak door dunno, what are the variables? is the puck on the floor? is the door being opened at the same time? ice hockey or field hockey? need some context :)\",\n \"Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers Soccer. .. .. .. Its that boring a** sport you mastered in 4th grade that foreigners take seriously thats unamerican and for sissy's. .. .. .. .. .. In my opinion. Lets face it soccer is boring as hell, If I want to watch a sport that will put me to sleep faster then a bear tranquilizer then Ill watch Women's Professional anything. Soccer is a boring sport, so I feel it is time to give soccer some credibility and make it more watchable to Americans by changing the rules of the game to make Soccer into a full contact sport. What exactly does Imabench have in mind? 1) All players wear metal armor 2) Anything goes in Soccer now. You want to punch a defender in the face to get the ball then punch a defender in the face and get the ball! 3) Steel toed shoes so that when someone steps on another players foot they dont start rolling around like they got shot and start crying like a b*tch. Ive seen soccer injuries, 5% require medical attention while the other 95% require acting classes. 4) No more immediate medical care, if you get hurt you gotta crawl over to the sideline or wait until someone scores. 5) Goalies get to use Tasers 6) Elbowing and kicking other players is encouraged. Also legal is punching, headbutting, spitting, poop throwing, vomiting, holding, being offsides, facemasks, and anything else. 7) Only rule is no all out fighting. 8) All teams have to be renamed to something tougher, like the LA Galaxy Destroyers or something like that.\",\n \"Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.”[1] Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance. [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/its-time-to-end-home-plate-collisions/.\",\n \"dog fighting 11 Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans.\",\n \"Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Ice Hockey is by far the most difficult sport to master and to play at the professional level. Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand. Ice skating is often the most overlooked facet of the game. So before you even decide, \\\"Hey, I wanna play ice hockey!\\\" You must learn to ice skate, and be very good at it because ice hockey can be a very dangerous game if you do not know how to skate. This brings me into my next point, the physical aspect of the game. Just as in football, ice hockey players are constantly placing their bodies on the line. Whether a defender is taking a blistering 90mph slap shot to the face (warning videos include blood and are gruesome) (http://www.youtube.com...) or you are on the wrong end of a skate blade (http://www.youtube.com...) you and your body are constantly being beaten and tested. Just imagine being on the ice, along the side boards, you are about to receive a pass, but you have 6'9 Zdeno Chara bearing down on you, possibly about to kill you. It's this aspect of the game that gets my most attention and makes me respect ice hockey players more. Going back to our passing situation. Having that huge defenseman on you would probably break your focus right? Well that isn't the case for NHL'rs. Because they get paid such large amounts of money they are expected to get that pass and still make a scoring chance out of it. There is a reason a hawk's wide open eyes are plastered onto most goalie masks around the league and that is because the goalie, and all other players on the ice, must be the epitamy of focus while on the ice. Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating (remember skating isn't easy either). I can elaborate on more instances of hockey skills if you would like but I want to get into the debate before needing to elaborate if necessary. I am excited to see your response because this has always been a hot debate in the sports world and would like to see what sport you choose, and your respective points. Thanks!\",\n \"American Football Fighters I agree that football players should be able to fight because some teams call the wrong plays.\",\n \"Fights to the death in an arena should be legal All of the claims you've brought at this point are coming out directly from you. I you got no source to back up what you said, then its regarded as false, simple. If you're so sure that America needs sports that haves people fights to the death, then bring a source. If you got no source, you're basically wasting our time.\",\n \"Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America Hockey is NOT the MOST skilled sport in America it does take alot of skill but not the most here is why 1. There is a cap on skill 2. There is a team to help 3. There are refs to stop violence 4. There is little creativity To begin, i would say that Chess is a sport that takes more skill than hockey. Chess is a mind-sport and it is under-recognizzed on how much skill it takes 1. There is a cap on skill in hockey, not chess A body can only get so fast, so strong, and so good. A brain cannot. A hockey player will eventually reach a peak of skill, and stay roughly around there. A chess player can keep learning and increasing his skill as high a possible. This cap will never be reached because it keeps expanding exponentially. 2. There is a hockey team, not a chess team In hockey, you have other team mates to help you, protect you and boost your confidence. In hockey, the pressure of the whole game does not rest on your shoulders. In chess, you have no one to depend on, no one to help you, and the pressure of the whole match is on you. 3. There are refs to stop violence there reaches a point in hockey were you can't do what ever you want to the other player. example, they can't take off their skate and stab someone with it. In chess, there is no higher-power to tell the other player to take it easy. No ref to tell him he is going to make a move that will hurt you too bad. 4. There is little creativity in hockey but a lot in chess How many ways can you win? how many ways can you score? how many formations are there? In chess, the answer is infinite. You can win with any combination of moves. The challenge? you MUST RAISE YOUR SKILL AND BE MORE CREATIVE THAN YOUR OPPONENT. in hockey, i could be more creative than any other player, but i would suck. in chess, i could be more creative than any other player and i would do well. It takes another amount of skill in chess to develop creativity than hockey\",\n \"Buffalo Is A Drinking Town With A Hockey Problem Rebuttal \\\"Buffalo: [1] A drinking game popular in Iceland the rules are as follows: 1. Everybody must use their left hand while drinking (except if you are left handed). 2. If you see anyone drinking with the right hand, you begin shouting BUFFALO! BUFFALO! BUFFALO! and clap your hands or bang a table in the same rhythm. Now everybody notice and join in. 3. This means that the unfortunate drinker must finish his/her drink as fast as he/she can to make you stop. There are no exceptions from finishing the drink.\\\" This has nothing to do with the town itself, aside from sharing the same name. You also have not made any argument attempting to prove that this meets the definition of a problem. This is a definition without an argument. \\\"Home games at the HSBC Arena have sold out and the [2]HSBC Arena has a seating capacity of 18,690 for hockey games\\\" This is not a problem. The revenue from ticket sales will directly benefit the local economy. \\\"[3]The Buffalo Sabers in there last season won 50 games and lost 45 games meeting your definition of a problem because it is difficult for the Buffalo Sabers a hockey team to win\\\" They have a win ratio of 10:9 wins to losses. This proves that they are more likely to win than to lose. Arguments Buffalo cannot be a drinking town because a town itself is incapable of drinking. While there may be people in the town who drink, people are not a town. Hockey is not a problem because the money from tickets sales, merchandise, and other hockey-related expenses benefits the economy. It also creates jobs, as evidenced by the numerous employees working for both the Buffalo Sabres and HSBC Arena.\",\n \"Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I'll give you one thing. You are such a master at the profession of being a Hypocrite! Hey, at least you where honest. I will go and give at least one reason for 6 of my opponents points, on why they are flawed, including rebutting his rebuttal. :) DARTH KIRONES SECOND POINT: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!!!! This seems very flawed. Yes, it might be exciting as a fan to watch, but you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. You are getting punched and shoved, until you get slammed to the ice by your opponent. You start to black out, but vaguely see some hands carrying you on a stretcher into the Locker Room. How the heck is situations like this \\\"good\\\"? Also, my opponent stated that they give bigger penalties if serious injuries occur. This is also false. They only give longer penalties if it is a hit that injures someone. In a Hockey fight, even if you knock someone unconscious, the penalty is still five minutes. As Darth Kirones says: \\\"the penalty is small\\\". Too small! DARTH KIRONES THIRD POINT: The Scoring He fails to see two things when saying that goalies in Hockey try harder than goalies in soccer. Just because you do not face as much shots in Soccer does NOT mean, at all, that you are trying less hard. Yes, there was less shots, but, the goalie made all the saves, didn't he? IF the soccer goalie faced more shots, it would have been a more accurate comparison because the soccer Goalie in that game did not have to work very hard to block less shots. That definitely does not mean that if there was more shots he would not have to work very hard though. Another thing. Because there is a lot less defence it is way easier to get shots on net in Hockey, then in Soccer, where there is more defensive players. DARTH KIRONES FOURTH POINT: Hockey is a better team sport Just because there is a shift in people on the ice does not make it more of a \\\"team sport\\\". It just means that you have different players on the ice. How does that make it more of a \\\"team sport\\\"? And the limit for NHL hockey is 23 players per Club, where as in Premier League Soccer, there is a limit of 25 players at a time. Seems to me there are more \\\"job opportunities\\\", as my opponent puts it, in soccer. DARTH KIRONES FIFTH POINT: Diving So my opponent says that he doesn't like people getting hurt. Ok, one more Hypocritical thing. He is cheating for Hockey right? Hockey is one of the most physical and highest contact sport. Well look at this: \\\"The highest rates of injury occur in sports that involve contact and collisions\\\"- University of Rochester sports statistics. My opponent might say that hockey players have more protection to prevent them from bug hits. This helps, but not enough. Players are still injured daily from big hits in Hockey. DARTH KIRONES SIXTH POINT: Faster This point is flawed for one major reason. My opponent stated that \\\"The word \\\"Longer\\\" and the word \\\"Better\\\" are NOT the same\\\" If you where a true loyal fan to a soccer or Hockey team, like many sports fanatics are, \\\"Longer\\\" and \\\"Better\\\" might very well mean the same because fans would love to see there favourite team for longer. This makes going to soccer games more enjoyable. DARTH KIRONES SEVENTH POINT: Promotion of Winter Fitness My opponent states that you don't get the full experience of soccer indoors because you don't have the \\\"sun shining on your face.\\\" Soccer does not need the perfect breeze and the amazing sunlight to be able to play. Also, if you wanted to emphasize that Hockey is such a winter sport, then why would you say: \\\"Just play indoors!\\\" That ruins your whole first point! If you want Hockey to be a winter sport, then you play outside, utilizing the ice. DARTH KIRONES REBUTTAL: Yes, hockey has unlimited overtime periods, but those very rarely go over 1 extra period, or 20 minutes extra time, and is ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS! Thanks, jacobie1121 References: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com... http://www.fifa.com...\",\n \"Hockey is a better sport than football. Just because hockey is played in the olympic games doesnt mean that football isnt popular. It isnt played the Olympic games because its an American sport and once again we have been arguing AMERICAN popularity. Also the Stanley Cup is televised just as much as the Superbowl but people just dont watch it as much. Have you considered this, that most of the people who play in the NHL are mostly from outside our country? Because of this, it shows that in the US not many people play hockey over football which is why the popularity is down in the US. Internationally hockey is way more popular than football but once again we are talking about the US. I myself am a hockey fan and enjoy the game because of its toughness and athletism it takes to play the game but to say that it is more popular than football isnt a fair judgement. As for the rule changes that the NFL has been coming too, the league is just trying to limit the amount of head injuries that are causing men to suffer alot of brain damage because of how physical the game of football is. Your right that it is a privelige to play in the NFL but why risk causing life threathing injuries over vicious hits that are completely illegal. To say that it is becoming a \\\"touch football league\\\" it is completely un-jusitfied because these head injuries shouldnt be nessessary and jeopardizing the lives of people. There are plenty of hard LEGAL hits in the NFL that show how physical of a game it is and always will be. Also, most of the rule changes in the NFL are just to protect the quarterback which i might say is something a little childish to the quarterbacks and favoring them a little bit but still doesnt take away from still being the most physical sport.\",\n \"is hockey better than american football I request that voters appreciate that due to the very short round timings of instigator we both have unfortunately forfeited one round each and that neither my opponent nor myself should receive penalty for this since our acts cancel each other out.I shall like to point out that my opponent chose to defend ice hockey as opposed to field hockey (which is definitely what one would assume hockey on its own meant since hockey was originally field only).Nonetheless I shall rebut her points and hope to conclude in a very formal and appropriate manner.My opponent seems to begin justifying hockey's supposed superiority over football by stating that \\\" In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice.\\\" This is as if to say that running into a slab of ice is a superior activity than running into a wall of muddy grass. I can assure that the bloodshed and overall damage of the ice is far more gruesome and malignant than the latter unless of course by chance the field happened to have very infested mud (which the well-cleaned professional fields of football do not). Thus this is a rather futile point to raise in favour of hockey as it merely proves the stupidity of ice hockey over football.\\\"There are no weapons in football.\\\" This is exactly why it's a safer and superior sport. It is a sport that turns the body into the weapon, one need only master his or her body and then train with it to master football. To master hockey is a far more dangerous and risky ordeal make it far more of a 'who is lucky enough not to get hit?' ordeal than a 'who is the best player?' ordeal.\\\"In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage.\\\" Yes and in the ghetto everyone carries a gun. Does this make the ghetto better than the uptown city?\\\"If a football hits you in the face, your face guard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost.\\\" This is because American football is a far safer sport played by very risk-averse individuals usually who will go far in life. In hockey there is a huge element of risk that you could literally get your head cracked open or jaw smashed in, in the blink of an eye due to bad luck. Thus it is a far more barbaric and inferior sport in terms of its system of regulations and safety measures.\\\"if it[the hockey stick] strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die.\\\" Yes exactly, this is why it is a far more dangerous and less pleasant sport to play, referee and watch.\\\" Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound.\\\" That's because American football players want to be safe while training and competing in their sport, not sorry for ever taking it up.\\\"A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them.\\\" Because that's exactly what we wants to happen in a sport... Not.\\\"I could go on but there really is no contest here.\\\" Then why offer a debate if there's no contest?\\\"Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.\\\" And this is exactly why football is the better sport.Do we think that slitting arteries of people open is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.Do we think that smashing someone in the 'right spot' therefore, in essence, committing murder is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.So then tell me why is it that a sport that incorporates both of those risks is deemed the better one? The simple fact is you can't tell me why because there is no reason why.As I said in round one, \\\"in American football anything is being involved in the sport.\\\" The brutality in American Football isn't one f danger, it is one represented through the fact that one must wear severely heavy padding in order to avoid the possible injury that could occur. Hockey endorses only shin pads and gum shields. This will not stop the hockey stick hitting you in the 'right spot' to cause a fatal blow and thus is a far inferior and barbaric sport in comparison with the civilised and rational sport of American football.I have refuted all points raised by pro (in fact favouring con's side throughout) and re-iterated my own.I leave it to the voters.\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD\",\n \"At which age should young adults be to play violent sports How do we define violent sports? The word 'violent' is very subjective in and of itself, so how can we define what is violent and what isn't? Suppose we say American football and ice hockey is 'violent'. We must remind ourselves that in both of these sports, all players wear a significant amount of safety gear, which is getting better by the day, and there are many rules in place to prevent severe violence or injury. It is probably better for children playing these sports to break them earlier in their lives- bones will be much quicker to heal in their youth. Because of the safety equipment's prices, many families who play these sports are typically at least in the middle class, and can afford the medical expenses associated with this. If proper procedure is taken medically, such as casts and slings, there is no long-term damage to the bone. Also, at younger ages, kids are slower and have worse hand-eye coordination. As such, it is very unlikely to see severe injuries in younger sports leagues. The danger comes more at the ages my opponent has provided, 12 to 14, where there has been significant athletic and muscle development and kids are faster and stronger than they were. Ultimately, the ages should stand as they are currently.\",\n \"Hockey should be America's past time. I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.\",\n \"Other sports have changed rules to make game safer. Dr. David Geier. \\\"Should MLB ban home plate collisions?\\\" May 30, 2011: \\\"changing rules about trying to score on fly balls would not fundamentally change the game. It would eliminate the collision, not the ability to score on fly balls. It would affect a small component of baseball to make it safer. Eliminating fighting in hockey or tackling in football are not equal comparisons, as some have argued. Eliminating chop blocks in football or body checking from behind in hockey are much better comparisons. They are evolutions of the rules in these sports to protect their players while still maintaining the integrity and nature of the sports.\\\"\",\n \"NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are \\\"checked, slashed, etc.\\\" this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"is hockey too violent Hokey is a game where you get smashed into walls and your supposed to be ok with that, to keep playing even though you know there was a guy that just floored you is just asking for a fight\",\n \"Gladiator Battles should be Legal I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. *** Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences. 1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial. In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system. 2. There are dangerous sports allowed My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career. Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions. Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line. 3. Both sides agree with the consequences My opponent will bring such things as \\\"it's unethical! \\\" or \\\"killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime! \\\" etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening. *** I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. *** Bibliography: [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.correctionalnews.com... [3] . http://www.news4jax.com... , . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [5] . http://video.msnbc.msn.com... [6] . http://www.kwch.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://bleacherreport.com... [9] . http://www.nytimes.com... [10] . http://www.cbc.ca... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] . http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"Fights to the death in an arena should be legal I need more blood because MMA is not enough, football is a joke, and baseball obviously isn't a sport. Sports are not violent enough. People need entertainment, and the current sports do not provide the proper kind of entertainment this country needs. Uncle Sam is a bloodthirsty warrior! He needs swords and morning stars slicing and crushing skulls. I want to see a bear fight a convict! I need to see this, this country needs it. It's going to be the only thing that will get us out of this recession. Opponent, since we cannot debate this in the Colosseum like real men, to the death, then debate.org will have to do. Instead of me crushing your skull with a war hammer, I will have to destroy any proposition that you bring against me.\",\n \"At which age should young adults be to play violent sports No, it isn't. That's something that *could* happen, not necessarily what *will* happen. It's a theoretical example. I need proof. Concrete, observational proof that you could show to me of kids getting severely injured in these sports. Since you have failed to provide this proof, I will continue with my contention that it isn't dangerous enough to warrant restriction to younger ages. To the audience, I must reiterate my contention: In these so-called \\\"violent\\\" sports, there is no serious harm to the players that could affect them more than temporarily. In football, ice hockey, and other sports a significant amount of safety equipment is worn to make sure these problems don't happen. Furthermore, kids are slower and not as strong as they are in later years, so the risk of serious injury is also reduced by the fact that they aren't moving as fast or with the same amount of force as kids who are going/have gone through puberty. In fact, the real danger is in high-school and in college sports, where we have seen serious concussions severely affect these players for the rest of their lives. However, I must remind the audience that my opponent contends that these sports should be restricted to *youth* leagues, not high-school or college leagues. Thank you for your time, and I urge you vote against this resolution.\",\n \"is hockey too violent Depends on what you consider too violent.\",\n \"is hockey better than american football Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.\",\n \"American Football Fighters The players should be allowed to fight because some teams bribe the referee to call stupid plays and make the other team win. To me thats not fair. So, yes the players should be allowed to fight on the field.\",\n \"is hockey too violent hockey is not too violent\",\n \"Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned My opponent has forfeited. I win by default.\",\n \"At which age should young adults be to play violent sports Theoretically, sure. But I'm asking you if you can find any real-world examples of this. The nose argument is fallacious because in both football and ice hockey players wear helmets with metal face guards.\",\n \"is hockey too violent Even though the rules prevent it, people getting hit in the head with those sticks even with the helmet could cause some bad whiplash\",\n \"Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!\",\n \"is hockey too violent Even with the rule oh having the hockey stick below the waist, by human reaction its very easy to swing the stick high, making injury chance high\",\n \"Hockey is better than soccer Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don’t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...\",\n \"Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.\",\n \"Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows \\\"Body checking.\\\" This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean \\\"no contact.\\\" There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.\",\n \"fighting should be banned from the NHL In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: \\\"Don Sanderson\\\" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game.\\\" Simpson: \\\"I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?\\\" It\\\"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it\\\"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death\\\"even an accidental death\\\"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We\\\"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.\",\n \"fighting should be banned from the NHL noit shiuod not that is what majes most of the money for the nhl and i perwonaly think that it is very true (your point) but you know that some teen ager died from a slapshot to the neck so why not stip hockey alltogether? NEVER! besides i play hockey and its fun.\",\n \"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; \\\"as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players \\\" slightly more than one of every five in the league \\\" are injured.\\\" These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.\",\n \"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.\",\n \"fighting should be banned from the NHL do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck!\",\n \"fighting should be banned from the NHL I guess this means I have won science you have forfeited. fighting in hockey should not be banned. that is my final answer. take it or leave it. (you better have taken it. or you better take it! :P )\",\n \"Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments...\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":41,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should bottled water be banned?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Bottled water should be banned\nit should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.","Bottled water should be banned\nWay to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. \"Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!\"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a \"waste\" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major \"argument\" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters)","Bottled water should be banned\nFYI if you type in bottled water in google image/google you will only see bottled water IN SUPERMARKERTS have a look http://www.google.co.nz... and what are you talking about bottled water being in classrooms, holding while you run, in the city excuse me! back in the 1950's in NYC you wouldent SEE ANYBODY holding bottled water not in the 40's, 30's, 20's!! ever and humans still survived it was introduced in 1970's 1) Bottled water isn't a good value Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame. 2) No healthier than tap water In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. 3) Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere. 4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety. This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes. 5) The corporatization of water In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies. Water is being called the \"Blue Gold\" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource. Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.BOOM i win and also if you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY i can live on 355ml of water everyday no problem but i choose not to because i like fizzy drinks","Water quality\nJust because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because \"we don't need it\" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.","Bottled water is harmful\nHowever, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: \"No one knows what the health outcomes are. \"This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, \"we don't know and I don't want to find out\". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that \"Bottled water is not safer\". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, \"Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption\". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered \"injurious\", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...]","Bottled water should be banned\n1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the \"harmful\" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as \"wasting\" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs....","Bottled water should be banned\nthank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO","Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity.\nAccess to drinking water should not be valued as a human right, but should be an accommodation. Most of the world does have clean drinking water and the ones that do not get plenty of help from the nations that do. For example, there is a project called The Water Project, in which people can donate their money to help other countries that do not have clean water. People in this world are trying to provide clean water for everyone everywhere. The people that decided to do this did this voluntarily because they felt that people need clean water. Even though there people who are using their time and money to make these wells for less fortunate people; it does cost a lot to do this. Many countries in the world are in a lot of debt and do not have the money to make clean water wells for every society in the world. Some people have to learn to travel to get to the clean water that they need. There are areas in the world that do have fresh water for everyone whether they are rich, poor, or middle class. Many people in the world didn't have much of an idea of the impact of throwing waste into the water in the past. They just figured that they were making their products better. Now many people are realizing that what people did in the past is affecting us in the world today. This isn't just about the water; this is about everything in the world. The past affects the future. In today's world, there are many people who are trying to help make the world become a better place for our future. There are many projects going on, like the one I mentioned earlier and also the go green project. People today can't go back in time and stop people for what they did to make the water unsafe for many people. Making the water clean is happening now, but it's a slow process and it will take time. In many cases, people do have access to drinking water for free. In the United States, for example, there are water fountains almost all over the country. Also in restaurants people can order plain tap water for no cost. But that is because the people there are able to purify their water, because they have the money. As the Philosopher James Rachels said, Different societies have different moral codes. So to you, having drinking water should be a human right, but the other society could be viewed as an accommodation. Rachels also states that it is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. Stating that, I believe that if one person believes that water is a human right, then they should try and search for an area where water is free and can be available to anyone. But for societies who believe that water is an accommodation, should keep it as such, and we should not judge them on their beliefs. Many people in the world decide, because they can, to buy water bottles. No one is forcing them to, but some people feel that the bottled water is cleaner, even though it is not always the case. People have their own rights to do this. Others shouldn't judge them for spending money to buy water. Just because some societies are not as rich as others, it doesn't mean that the poorer people should be upset with people who work to afford it. My last point is, there are many people in this world, so many that we are overpopulated. So water being just an accommodation is good for the world. I understand that death is wrong if it is too soon, but if a family knows that they will not be able to care for a child because of lack of resources, they should move or not have a child. So water as an accommodation could help make the population number go to a steady rate.","Bottled water should be banned\nMy argumentsOf all the very valid points I bring up, the Pro only responds to one of 15 examples, the one about joggers. Yes people survived before bottled water.... people also survived before smart phones too, but if you banned smart phones people wouldnt know how to function anymore........His arguments - 1 - \"These two brands are essentially filtered tap water,\" - Meaning they are safer than tap water....\"And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.\" - I dont see how a product should be banned because wise and witty businessmen can create enterprises and jobs to meet the demand of portable bottled water.... should computers be banned since pound for pound they are making good money? Of course not. Its not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand with the potential for generating huge amounts of profit and you havent explained why it should br. - 2 - \"While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established\" - Your shooting yourself in the foot here Pro, that only reinforces my argument about how bottled water could be seen as healthier than tap water - 3 - Yes it is true that bottled water generates trash, but im curious about why your putting the blame on the water bottles instead of people..... It is people who throw them away rather than recycle them, and the blame should be on the consumers in this case, not the product. Anyone here who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle rather than recycle it knows very well it is their own fault for doing so. However the Pro is trying to blame the water bottle here....... thats absurd - 4 - \"Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.\" - Again, thanks for giving me such great arguments :)\"Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources.\" - Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can live with paying $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they cant do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled Water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy....\" the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.\" - So your admitting that tap water can be very costly to society. Hmmm let me do the math here, Bottle of Water = $2Tap water that needs constant taxpayer dollars to stay in shape, at one point costing $17.5 billion in taxpayer dollars in the state of California alone....Which is cheaper again? - 5 - Now in this argument your claiming water companies are evil for trying to expand their profits, but how is this necessarily a bad thing? The US government has already shown how they do a dreadful job of providing us with water (pollution, flouride in tap water, leaky and poor conditions of the infrastructure, billions in costs in a YEAR, etc) whereas water companies are completely on their own to supply us with water, and they dont have access our taxes to fix their mistakes, giving them a hell of an incentive to make sure their systems are modern and up to speed....Pro's remarks:\"If you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY\"\"I choose not to because i like fizzy drinks\"I like how the Pro tries to say that water is bad for your health yet states his preference for fizzy drinks, sort of implies he really doesnt know how anything about trying to be healthy... May i suggest a healthier alternative to those fizzy drinks, Oh yes i did ;D","Bottled water should be banned\nI hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is \"too much government. \" By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a \"punishment\" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.","Bottled water should be banned\nI believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, \"Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. \" [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. \"In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. \" states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any \"unclean\" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that \"Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. \" [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com)","Bottled water should be banned\nI would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. .","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)\n\"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. \"The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\" Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion). Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed. One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe. Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical) The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar. It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank. The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case. Con concedes the carbon footprint point. E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks. Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless. Conclusion I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past. My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro. Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical. Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.","Bottled water is harmful\nMany bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. \"Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?\" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive \"Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water.\" (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment \"Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007\"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose.\" (2) \"Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat).\" (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer \"Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants.\" (2) \"The fact of the matter is\" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests.\" (3) \"Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element.\" (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? \"There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.\" (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won\"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...","It is time to stop buying bottled water\nBottled water is often just tapwater anyway","Water Resources, a Commodity\nWater resources are distributed unequally. Uneven distribution and wasteful consumption warrant the..."],"string":"[\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nit should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nWay to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. \\\"Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!\\\"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a \\\"waste\\\" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major \\\"argument\\\" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters)\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nFYI if you type in bottled water in google image/google you will only see bottled water IN SUPERMARKERTS have a look http://www.google.co.nz... and what are you talking about bottled water being in classrooms, holding while you run, in the city excuse me! back in the 1950's in NYC you wouldent SEE ANYBODY holding bottled water not in the 40's, 30's, 20's!! ever and humans still survived it was introduced in 1970's 1) Bottled water isn't a good value Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame. 2) No healthier than tap water In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. 3) Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere. 4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety. This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes. 5) The corporatization of water In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies. Water is being called the \\\"Blue Gold\\\" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource. Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.BOOM i win and also if you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY i can live on 355ml of water everyday no problem but i choose not to because i like fizzy drinks\",\n \"Water quality\\nJust because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because \\\"we don't need it\\\" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful\\nHowever, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: \\\"No one knows what the health outcomes are. \\\"This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, \\\"we don't know and I don't want to find out\\\". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that \\\"Bottled water is not safer\\\". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, \\\"Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption\\\". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered \\\"injurious\\\", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...]\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\n1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the \\\"harmful\\\" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as \\\"wasting\\\" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs....\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nthank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO\",\n \"Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity.\\nAccess to drinking water should not be valued as a human right, but should be an accommodation. Most of the world does have clean drinking water and the ones that do not get plenty of help from the nations that do. For example, there is a project called The Water Project, in which people can donate their money to help other countries that do not have clean water. People in this world are trying to provide clean water for everyone everywhere. The people that decided to do this did this voluntarily because they felt that people need clean water. Even though there people who are using their time and money to make these wells for less fortunate people; it does cost a lot to do this. Many countries in the world are in a lot of debt and do not have the money to make clean water wells for every society in the world. Some people have to learn to travel to get to the clean water that they need. There are areas in the world that do have fresh water for everyone whether they are rich, poor, or middle class. Many people in the world didn't have much of an idea of the impact of throwing waste into the water in the past. They just figured that they were making their products better. Now many people are realizing that what people did in the past is affecting us in the world today. This isn't just about the water; this is about everything in the world. The past affects the future. In today's world, there are many people who are trying to help make the world become a better place for our future. There are many projects going on, like the one I mentioned earlier and also the go green project. People today can't go back in time and stop people for what they did to make the water unsafe for many people. Making the water clean is happening now, but it's a slow process and it will take time. In many cases, people do have access to drinking water for free. In the United States, for example, there are water fountains almost all over the country. Also in restaurants people can order plain tap water for no cost. But that is because the people there are able to purify their water, because they have the money. As the Philosopher James Rachels said, Different societies have different moral codes. So to you, having drinking water should be a human right, but the other society could be viewed as an accommodation. Rachels also states that it is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. Stating that, I believe that if one person believes that water is a human right, then they should try and search for an area where water is free and can be available to anyone. But for societies who believe that water is an accommodation, should keep it as such, and we should not judge them on their beliefs. Many people in the world decide, because they can, to buy water bottles. No one is forcing them to, but some people feel that the bottled water is cleaner, even though it is not always the case. People have their own rights to do this. Others shouldn't judge them for spending money to buy water. Just because some societies are not as rich as others, it doesn't mean that the poorer people should be upset with people who work to afford it. My last point is, there are many people in this world, so many that we are overpopulated. So water being just an accommodation is good for the world. I understand that death is wrong if it is too soon, but if a family knows that they will not be able to care for a child because of lack of resources, they should move or not have a child. So water as an accommodation could help make the population number go to a steady rate.\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nMy argumentsOf all the very valid points I bring up, the Pro only responds to one of 15 examples, the one about joggers. Yes people survived before bottled water.... people also survived before smart phones too, but if you banned smart phones people wouldnt know how to function anymore........His arguments - 1 - \\\"These two brands are essentially filtered tap water,\\\" - Meaning they are safer than tap water....\\\"And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.\\\" - I dont see how a product should be banned because wise and witty businessmen can create enterprises and jobs to meet the demand of portable bottled water.... should computers be banned since pound for pound they are making good money? Of course not. Its not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand with the potential for generating huge amounts of profit and you havent explained why it should br. - 2 - \\\"While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established\\\" - Your shooting yourself in the foot here Pro, that only reinforces my argument about how bottled water could be seen as healthier than tap water - 3 - Yes it is true that bottled water generates trash, but im curious about why your putting the blame on the water bottles instead of people..... It is people who throw them away rather than recycle them, and the blame should be on the consumers in this case, not the product. Anyone here who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle rather than recycle it knows very well it is their own fault for doing so. However the Pro is trying to blame the water bottle here....... thats absurd - 4 - \\\"Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.\\\" - Again, thanks for giving me such great arguments :)\\\"Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources.\\\" - Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can live with paying $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they cant do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled Water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy....\\\" the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.\\\" - So your admitting that tap water can be very costly to society. Hmmm let me do the math here, Bottle of Water = $2Tap water that needs constant taxpayer dollars to stay in shape, at one point costing $17.5 billion in taxpayer dollars in the state of California alone....Which is cheaper again? - 5 - Now in this argument your claiming water companies are evil for trying to expand their profits, but how is this necessarily a bad thing? The US government has already shown how they do a dreadful job of providing us with water (pollution, flouride in tap water, leaky and poor conditions of the infrastructure, billions in costs in a YEAR, etc) whereas water companies are completely on their own to supply us with water, and they dont have access our taxes to fix their mistakes, giving them a hell of an incentive to make sure their systems are modern and up to speed....Pro's remarks:\\\"If you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY\\\"\\\"I choose not to because i like fizzy drinks\\\"I like how the Pro tries to say that water is bad for your health yet states his preference for fizzy drinks, sort of implies he really doesnt know how anything about trying to be healthy... May i suggest a healthier alternative to those fizzy drinks, Oh yes i did ;D\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nI hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is \\\"too much government. \\\" By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying \\\"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a \\\"punishment\\\" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nI believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, \\\"Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. \\\" [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. \\\"In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. \\\" states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any \\\"unclean\\\" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that \\\"Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. \\\" [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com)\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned\\nI would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. .\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)\\n\\\"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\\\" So now Pro is admitting to something. \\\"The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\\\" Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion). Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed. One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe. Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical) The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar. It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank. The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case. Con concedes the carbon footprint point. E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks. Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless. Conclusion I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past. My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro. Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical. Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful\\nMany bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. \\\"Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?\\\" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive \\\"Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water.\\\" (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment \\\"Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007\\\"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose.\\\" (2) \\\"Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat).\\\" (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer \\\"Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants.\\\" (2) \\\"The fact of the matter is\\\" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests.\\\" (3) \\\"Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element.\\\" (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? \\\"There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.\\\" (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won\\\"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...\",\n \"It is time to stop buying bottled water\\nBottled water is often just tapwater anyway\",\n \"Water Resources, a Commodity\\nWater resources are distributed unequally. Uneven distribution and wasteful consumption warrant the...\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. Yes the U.S. government does hold more power than the state, but that's not the argument here. The current power over the regulation of water belongs to the state, and to change that would be catastrophic. The system already works, even though there are some struggles, but the gov. can't use one full regulation for all states even though the states are all different in environment. The resolution of the debate states that the government would implement a stricter policy, not just push one, which if it's so important than that's what they should do.","Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun No because people do not let plastic out in the sun melt into their drinking water - they are not stupid. And those who do (I can't imagine anyone who does this) probably don't consume it daily - either way, it is not healthy.","State as sole supplier is a bad idea You say you are against monopolies but affirm that the 40% percent of the world's water supply is brought to people by TWO corporations. The prop. doesn’t propose to create a monopoly, we just know it is so, as you well confirmed. It IS a natural monopoly because only few have access to it. For us irt would be just perfect that everyone had access to clean and fresh water to survive but sadly it isn’t like that. We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations. Only by applying some control, the state could guarantee that distribution to remote locations are being done and subsidize when need it. It is a state major concern that the population is healthy and safe. Sadly, not the corporations concern. As you said above, Nationalize water would be like closing private schools to ensure education”well, If a person is not happy with their education, it is a personal decision to do something about it. There are books and people that can help them improve their knowledge. Many of the great characters of our history are well known for being self-taught, but no child in history have survive without the concern of someone in giving the water and food that is needed to live and make to a point where the child can decide by himself what does he want for his future.","Which water is the best water My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We’re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we’d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.","Soft drinks should be sold at school But I still think soft should be banned, because it gives students more harm than good. This argument is all about student not adults!","Acess to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity I thank my peer for such an extensive response. My peer has made many good points, and I will attempt to refute each in turn. First I cede that the supply of resources in the planet is indeed finite. Yet is drinking water one of those that need be a problem? There is indeed a solution to the dwindling fresh water supply, a solution that is obvious enough. Considering the majority of the earth is composed of water, we need only look at the oceans to solve the problem. Yes, seawater is not drinkable, but it is as such because of its high saline(salt) content. We are able to desalinate water though, and have been doing as such for hundreds, if not thousands of years, \"Desalination/Distillation is one of mankind's earliest forms of water treatment, and it is still a popular treatment solution throughout the world today. In ancient times, many civilizations used this process on their ships to convert sea water into drinking water. Today, desalination plants are used to convert sea water to drinking water on ships and in many arid regions of the world, and to treat water in other areas that is fouled by natural and unnatural contaminants. Distillation is perhaps the one water treatment technology that most completely reduces the widest range of drinking water contaminants.[1]\" This solution as simple of a concept as it is, would require a massive global effort. Yet with the stakes being so high as my peer has stated, it is a step that must be taken. My peer also has falsely stated that by negating water as a right we would prevent a nuclear war. Yet even if we were to take this step, other dwindling resources would cause the same outcome. Therefore the situation has turned into one of, \"damned if we do, damned if we don't.\" Logically speaking, whether or not a solution for water is found, another scarce resource, such as food will cause the same outcome. On the note of climate change, I can only assume my peer realizes that .76 degrees Celsius temperature change within a 100 year period is well within the norm for previous temperature changes in Earths history. Indeed .76 degrees is quite mild as compared to, \"The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago.[2]\" Yet he is correct in stating that it will affect the worlds freshwater supply negatively. As such we must begin taking steps immediately towards seeking alternative means of freshwater(desalination). The bonus to the warming would be, well, becoming warmer, \"Agriculture in the U.S. and other industrialized countries is expected to be less vulnerable to climate change than agriculture in developing nations, especially in the tropics, where farmers may have a limited ability to adapt. In addition, the effects of climate change on U.S. and world agriculture will depend not only on changing climate conditions, but will also depend on the agricultural sector's ability to adapt through future changes in technology, changes in demand for food, and environmental conditions, such as water availability and soil quality. Management practices, the opportunity to switch management and crop selection from season to season, and technology can help the agricultural sector cope with and adapt to climatic variability and change.\" One need only be prepared, and if indeed there were such a catastrophe approaching us, the effort must be global. Also one important factor in this, as the planet becomes warmer, habitable land will increase, think Greenland, and Iceland becoming moderate temperature zones. This will increase available land for agriculture as well. If, and I will stress IF, humanity prepares properly, climate change(warming) could be beneficial. I will state that warming has the possibility of being beneficial, if it were to get colder(a distinct possibility) indeed much colder, think mini ice age, and scientists are saying that it is possible, if not likely, \"The supposed ‘consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum' in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24' – which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun's surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.[3]\" Indeed if this were the case, it would signal an increase in available freshwater from glaciers/snowmelt, but would spell disaster for agriculture, thus shifting the cause of a war from water, to food. Which supports the aforementioned statement, that a nuclear war over resources is likely regardless of whether or not water is scarce. Indeed water is perhaps the one problem that we can easily solve if enough effort is put into it. As we already have to technology to desalinate water in mass quantities, one need only build sufficient facilities to meet the need. Continuing, my peers point is true, that government ability to secure drinking water is indeed failing. Yet this is not because we do not have the ability to meet the need. It is because there is not enough effort to solve the problem. In terms of survival of a species, need wealth even be necessary to undertake steps to solve problems? It shouldn't, yet sadly it is. This is more of a failing on humanities part, not because we do not posess the means and technology to do so, but rather because we do not see the unnecessary deaths of billions to be an urgent issue that must be solved now. A sad point indeed. In terms of population growth, again my peer is correct that this poses a serious problem. Yet again it is a problem that can be solved. Indeed it can be done without harming anyone. A limit upon the number of children a couple(or person) can have is a way to solve it. It would not immediately solve the problem but within a couple of generations population would decrease. Think 1 child for every 2 people, and within a 50 year span one could surmise that a 8 billion pop. could become as little as 4, if not even less as not every person has children. I cant say I wholly agree with that solution morally and ethically, but it is a better alternative to a nuclear war. Finally I will make one additional point, P4: Because we posess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder. 1) http://ga.water.usgs.gov... 2) http://www.sciencedaily.com... 3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...","Bottled water is harmful I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.","Which water is the best water My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.","This house would enforce a complete ban upon alcohol Banning alcohol completely is a preposterous idea. This world has previously attempted to totally prohibit alcohol, and these scenarios have not ended well. I would like to begin by presenting you with two significant substantives which clearly prove that the moot should fall: Alcohol as a poison: I predict that my opponent will attempt to portray alcohol as a \"poison.\" One of the most common dilemmas causing people to wish for a ban on alcohol is that they view it as a substance that causes great destruction. My position in the debate is not to deny that people can act inappropriately while drinking alcohol. I must, however, prove that it is not the alcohol that is the poison, but the way it is used. Alcohol can be beneficial to the human system, a glass of red wine every night is actually recommended by medical professionals to help with the prevention of heart disease. It only becomes unpleasant when it is taken excessively. This is the same with several other foods and drinks: milk is beneficial to the human body, however drinking it in excessive amounts can be harmful. We do not ban milk; why should we ban alcohol? Freedom of Choice: A lot of freedom of choice would be removed from society if alcohol was to be banned entirely. Responsible drinkers would lose their rights simply because others are misusing their alcohol-related rights. This is completely unfair. There are several irresponsible drivers on the road, but cars have not been banned for this reason. Banning alcohol would violate the freedom of responsible drinkers, therefore the moot should fall: alcohol should not be completely banned.","water be considered a public good and not be privatized My opponent relies on extreme cases where the government is forced to allow a monopoly to a certain water company. In his video, and in the Cochabamba incident, the local governments needed money. These cases prove that business without the restricting hand of competition can be very corrupt and insensitive. However, the vast majority of water companies have to compete with other water companies, and thus charge low rates for water. My opponent's examples therefore show not that the privatization of water is evil, but that no one company (not even one run by the government) should be put in charge of everyone's water. Thus we should not discourage the privatization of water, but encourage it and create a lot of competition. Competition ensures that prices will be kept low and that quality will continue to increase. My opponent claims that privatization of water will make prices triple, but this would only happen if a certain water company suddenly got a monopoly. Plus, with the average rate in the US being about a quarter of a cent per gallon, a tripled price means almost nothing. Even if you use a lot of water, there is no way you can use more than 1000 gallons a day, which means with a tripled price you would spend no more than $4.50 on water a day. With minimum wage being almost $7 an hour, $4.50 is very affordable. Of my opponent's points, only one can be said to apply to the general public, and not to a few isolated cases. Water is the foundation of life; without it nothing can survive. But that doesn't mean that purified water is a natural right. Developing nations in Africa live on water straight from a water hole. Purified water is a privilege that only the wealthiest of nations can enjoy. It is not a right, but a commodity. Conclusion: All of my contentions stand intact. My opponent's points either apply only to specific cases, or cannot be applied in the context of this debate.","Its harmful to the environment You end up with a bottle that needs to be recycled and often isn’t 85% of plastic water bottles become garbage. The bottling companies find it easier and more profitable to let you throw the water containers away and buy a new one each time. About 2 million of them are thrown away every hour. Most bottles sold are actually small sized bottles, increasing the wastage","Its no better for you. The source of your bottled water is likely to be the same one that serves your home. Coke revealed last year that the source of it´s highly publicized Dasani Brand water was London's municipal water supply (with a 3000% markup). PepsiCos Aquafina Brand bottled water is treated tap water coming from 11 different wells around the USA. Mostly the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier. Drinking water is better for your teeth as it contains flourides. Bottled water does not.","<GY> Water should be Privatized To have a conclusion for this debate, water should not be Privatized because this could lead to water waste. Having water free and open to everyone causes us to lose more water. If anything we should look to purchasing the water saving appliances like China has. It's a wonderful way to save water and would help countries in many ways. However until we work something out it makes no sense. We need to work hard to help the poeple without water and reach out to them. Thank you for listening to my debate.","Bottled Water is better than Tap Water \"Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD\"Oh...now I feel silly...I don't get sarcasm, so I am just going to go on with this debate like its cereal. Nom Nom Nom. Tap water has been shown to cure AIDS in unicorns.","People believe the marketing hype too much Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.","It quite simply can taste better. Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste.","Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda Although you are valid on your thoughts, you are not seeing the big picture. I do not believe banning soda from children will solve any problems. If a parent is (unlikely) able to keep a child from having soda, they will be exposed to it later on in life because of its prevalence in society. I believe the only way to take the problems of soda out of the picture is to take soda out of American society. Overall, I believe denying soda to a toddler does not avoid any life long problems.","<GY> Water should be Privatized To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society. 1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard. 2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle. 3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need. Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.","SUMMATION As debate began, the prop team pointed out the importance of water in human lives. It is is the most essential element, next to air, to human life; the body usually cannot survive longer than several days without water. People have survive a hunger strike and have last several weeks, but without water a person would only last approximately a week. Since water is such an important component to us, it would make sense that the quality of the water should be just as important as the quantity. Drinking water should always be clean and free of contaminants to ensure proper health and wellness. Basically, the consumption of clean water is a human right, as well as a health issue and team supports the complete ownership and supply to be from states. The main reason is because governments are everywhere, caring for their people and not worrying for investors, profit and income goals. This team understands the real situation with the resource. The availability of water is decreasing and the originals sources of water in the world are slowly disappearing. Until technology is accessible to everyone, governments should guaranteed the supply of water to the people. The opp team kept defending the idea that privatization was the answer of the problem, because it would give a better quality service and will have the opportunity to choose from different choices, depending on the prices the can afford. The opp insist that monopoly is not an option but already 40% of the water belong to 2 big companies. But we don´t think is as simple as that. Corporations can have access to technology and they may have better ways to get invest in it, but the reality is that the pursue a profit and when there is no business, there is no progress. States should have the option of taking some control over this possession and make it a deal for everyone needed. This problem is very important and we are dealing with it today. Maybe in a couple of years, thing will change but in the present, human lives will never loose against corporate profits. That´s why prop wan this debate.","water be considered a public good and not be privatized While water is the source of life, it does not come free of charge. For this reason I support the privatization of water. Contention 1: no economic difference between public and private For water to be fit for human consumption, it must be purified to remove all the toxins and parasitic creatures that inhabit it. This purification process is not free of charge, and thus we do not get our water free of charge whether we get our water from the government or from a private business. If we get water from a private business, we get a monthly water bill. If we get our water from the government, we get an increased monthly tax rate. Thus there is no real economic difference between getting our water from the government and getting our water from a private company. We might as well keep the status quo and have private companies provide us with water. Contention 2: private companies will continuously better purifying technology Private companies are motivated by economic profit. One of the best ways to ensure economic profit is to make one's product better than the competition's. Water companies are continuously researching ways to make water cheaper, cleaner, tastier, and more accessible than the competition, ensuring that the quality of our water continuously gets better. That would not happen if our government supplied us with water, since the government does not make money off of water, and thus would not be motivated to improve its quality. Contention 3: water is affordable The Cochabamba incident was a scandalous incident of corruption, but we must remember that such cases are rare, since otherwise there would be revolts everywhere protesting the price of water. Bechtel Corp was able to charge very high prices for water because of a) lack of competition, and b) backing from the World Bank. While the incident proves that the World Bank and Bechtel Corp are corrupt, it does not prove that business in general is corrupt and cannot provide water at affordable prices. In the US, 1000 gallons of water cost $1.50 [1] and we can expect similar prices elsewhere. Sources: [1] http://www.fcwa.org...","Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0","plastic bottles should be banned Okay. So, the way I see it, you're saying that we should get rid of plastics because there is some sort of new material. But, if we were to ban all plastic bottles, or plastics overall, then where would we put the plastic? Its not like we have huge landfills laying around where we can dump the billions of pounds of plastic. So, where would we put the plastic? Also, what about the plastic currently in circulation? How would we deal with that plastic? So we are killing animals and destroying the environment, and I am admittedly against this as well. But face it: if we're going to eliminate all the plastic, we have to consider the cost, as well as where it would be relocated to. I look forward to seeing your response!","Soft drinks should be sold at school School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds, schools could sell healthier foods for their student to eat and could earn heaps more money than selling soft drinks. I strongly believe that World's governments should banned or restricted soft drinks and alcohol, because it is harmful to yourself and the government. Government shouldn't banned drugs, because drugs only harm yourself, not others; I am sure people could make right choices for themselves not others. By the way, I still confidently thought soft drinks id bad for all of us, because of the nasty ingredients the Coca-Cola company has put into it to harm students and adults. Soft drinks should be banned!!!","It is time to stop buying bottled water Its harmful to the environment","Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence. Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it. Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide: Humans are made up mostly of it. The earth's surface is made up mostly of it. It can be used as a coolant. All plant and animal life requires it to live. It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages. It is what we clean ourselves with. It's fun and good exercise to swim in it. Yes, water can do many harmful things. Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic. Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life. Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough. Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon. The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban. The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors. So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that. Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet. Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems). And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water. Your move.","You choose, I choose. The resolution is: \"American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply.\" This is country specific because third world countries clearly need flouridated water supplies. My opponent has chosen Pro and this is split BOP. My opponent reserves the right to swap positions if he wants to in the first round. I am prepared to debate either side.","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion. 1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water. 2. All water has impurities. 3. Pure water ideally is tasteless. Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste. Applying this to unicorns. 1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history. 1. Legends have unicorns. 3. Pure history is boring. Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear. Thus, unicorns are not proven. Conclusion: Conduct: Pro He is far more courteous than I. Spelling: Tie There isn\"t much in the way of a difference here. Arguments: Con Pro has basically dropped all arguements Sources: Pro Con provides almost no sources.","Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water We could, if we could be bothered, take water purification devices with us. The inconvenience suffered would be far preferable than seeing beautiful paradise islands overcome by plastic bottles, as has happened in Thailand to my knowledge and I'm sure other places too. We have a responsibility when we travel, the responsibility to leave the place as we found it - as much as we possibly can. Dumping water bottles ruins an environment for decades to come. Taking our own means of purifying water is the responsible thing to do.","Hydroxyl Acid Should Be Banned I contend that Hydroxyl acid should not be banned for the simple fact that it is WATER.......","Which water is the best water Bottled water is healthier and better than filtered water","Its no better for you. The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are \"mineral\" or \"spring\" waters. For a water to possess the name of \"mineral\" or \"spring\" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.","Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity Yeah, so just don't vote on this debate xD","It is time to stop buying bottled water Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water","Soda should be banned Though soda by no means should be banned forever, I must ask, are we debating about schools or all of life?","Bottled water is harmful Round 1 is accept Rounds 2&3 are arguments and and rebuttals Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions","Water should not be privatized Round 1 is for accepting only. Con may not post any entirely new arguments in Round 4 (though can post new rebuttals etc). I will be arguing that water should not be privatized. Con must defend the position that water should be privatized.","Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned First, thank you Who for taking and responding this debate so quickly. I'm glad, Who, that you knew exactly what dihydrogen monoxide is. While I was hoping for someone who didn't know, I am prepared to refute my claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. Yes, Dihydrogen monoxide is hydric acid, H20, or water . However, a qualification has not been set to what it should be banned from, to, or from where. Actually gathering up all of the dihydrogen monoxide in this world would be imposible, as there is no container big enough to fit all of the water in the world simultaneously. According to http://www.dhmo.org... , Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made. However, fictional and non-fictional, I will limit this debate showing why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned in any form, thus as the resolution does not qualify that \"all\" dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. I propose that if I find any reason why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, I win the debate. 1. Dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from all mogwai. After watching Gremlins, I would strongly suggest that dihydrogen monoxide NOT be placed on any mogwai, for any reason, what so ever. In spite of the fact that this causes mogwai to reproduce, the potential for harm from one mogwai can be detrimental to society. This can clearly be seen in the Gremlin series of movies. On a side note, I'm sure that all wicked witches, regardless of their directionality, would support a ban of dihydrogen monoxide, as that book and movie \"The Wizard of Oz\" has clearly shown that when placed upon the skin of a wicked witch, it causes almost certain death. However, I am not a proponent of wicked witches, so I do not plan on supporting this stance. 2. Contaminated dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from drinking and entering all other sources In third world countires, it is determined that bad drinking water kills 4000 children a day. http://www.unicef.org... Additionally, grey-water runoff from farms, factories, and sewer drains causes a contamination of drinking water supplies making water undrinkable and potentially carcinogenic. \"Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life.\" Yes, dihydrogen monoxide does in fact contribute to our warmth and weather patterns. But it is also a leading cause of damages in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and various other weather related phenomena. Is rain not dihydrogen monoxide? The last time I went out in the rain I'm pretty sure it converted to water. Please inform me if someone else has had any experiences of being rained on by nature by something other than water. \"Perhaps the reason we find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water\". One of the leading causes of tumors is contaminated dihydrogen monoxide. While I will agree that it is not dihydrogen monoxide in its pure form that is causing the cancer; instead, it is the vector. Many communities already have a ban on dihydrogen monoxide if the chemicals in it are not safe for human consumption. 3. A ban on dihydrogen monoxide does not necessarily mean a ban of the chemical, rather a ban on the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Frequently, during summer months, many states, counties, and municipalities impose bans on water. This is due to the shortage of dihydrogen monoxide, not the complete prohibition of the substance. Since this is done to preserve the continued supply of water, the con is suggesting that in times of drought, we should not ban or ration water supplies. Most importantly, the con is suggesting that we never place a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. While I will admit that it is a vital and necessary component in all this organic, Who is suggesting that no ban should, in any form, be placed upon it.","Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water This doesn't apply to most Western countries though and people there could easily rely on tap water for their needs. << wrong side of the debate :/","Its harmful to the environment There are environmental costs to purifying tap water too. Not to forget the toxic materials necessary to pump and deliver the water to the tap. Moreover the problems you raise are more with the bottles themselves and how we dispose of them than with the concept of bottled water per se. Biodegradable corn starch 'polymers' or a more responsible attitude to recycling would also solve the problem.","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) ik you were about to ask me this, i was to tell you this is a troll question.","Which water is the best water The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. \"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.\"[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn\"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled.\"[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. \"D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.\"[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) HA ARE YOU KIDDING ME? OF COURCE TAP WATER IS BETTER THAN BOTTLED WATER, WHO WOULDN'T THINK THAT. RETARDS OF COURSE.","Which water is the best water You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it’s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.","Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is \"prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned\" Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job! Seriously, though. MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so. But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - \"Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made.\" Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time. I assure you that if the words \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" had been changed to \"water\" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%. Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them. Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.]. Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did. And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else]. Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance. I'll go over this one more time. \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X. Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. \"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned\" implies that overall, it should be banned. Consider this hypothetical topic: \"People should be brutally slain\" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because \"People\" refers to people in general. Here's another one. \"I'm better than my opponent.\" PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING, he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" to mean \"Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination\", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof. Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) You call me trolling? Look who is talking, I should report you. This debate has nothing to say. Of cource Tap Water is better. Who wouldn't agree?","Lift soda ban from schools! I think schools should lift bans on sodas and sugary drinks because some children can contain themselves after a Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, PowerAde, and Sprite. The only drinks that should be banned are energy drinks like Red Bull, Monster, MIO ENERGY, etc. because they give people lots of energy and Mountain Dew which contains Yellow 5 which increases behavior issues.","Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles You will be the death of us all. If water was sold in plastic bottles, people would be forced to drink tap water and use other containers. You just can't produce enough glass to meet the demand. What's more, glass is extremely fragile and will break if I drop it, but plastic bottles won't. I know plastic bottles harm the environment, but glass bottles would take up even more energy and resources, which would do equal or more damage to the environment. Plastic bottles for life!","Bottled water is harmful Clearly me and my opponent have a difference of opinion and for this reason I will end this debate.","Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. The fact that anybody would want the gov. to regulate the quality of water is insanity. The U.S. gov. has made enough mistakes already and this doesn't need to add to the list. All they would do is screw it up, currently water quality is decided by the state, but if the gov. would take over full control they would first off be overwhelmed. Also every state is different, you cant have the same regulations in CA as you do in PA, but the gov. would most likely just blanket all regulations under one. Also everyone has a different idea of water quality. There is an 8$ bottle of water that is black with dirt but its considered \"healthy\". Listen everyone is different so if the people are ok with drinking sh** then I have no problem with it. (If you have any other aruements in the con of this topic please let me know!)","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Thanks for a well written response! \"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid. \"One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle.\" Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't. \"The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates. Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA\"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, \"the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children\".\"[1] \"E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are.\" Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2] \"Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless.\" Let's see his refutation: \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) This was not a troll debate in the first place. Thanks for wasting my time.","Soda should be banned Soda shouldn't be banned because part of human rights is we choose what we eat and drink so banning soda would take those rights away. Also, as soon as soda is banned, a new junk will take its place that is maybe even worse so that we will never be rid of un healthy food Furthermore, banning soda would make lots of people lose jobs which our society would have to deal with. This is why it is silly to ban soda, we have bigger problems to solve!","Bottled water is harmful In response to my opponents challenge. \"Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. \" \"The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water.\"(1) \"The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. \" (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error. Now to the real debate. \"It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing.\" The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks. Plus, check out this: \"In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\"[3] Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated. Bottled water: Isn\"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container. Environmental effects argument: \"How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare.\" It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL. \"Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles.\" Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2] How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it. Cost Argument \"Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water.\" Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store? \"Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits.\" Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1] Taste \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" This still does not prove my taste argument wrong. \"Less regulated. No such point was made.\" It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1] \"Costs more than tap. Not necessarily.\" No proof given. \"Bigger carbon footprint. No such point.\" Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1] As you can see, I did have such point. \"Not as good for you as tap. Refuted.\" It still is not tested for E.coli. [1] \"Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water.\" No refutation given at all. Conclusion My opponent has not given a single source on this debate. No evidence given from opponent. My opponent did not refute point 4. (No personal attack intended) [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com...","Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org...","Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Here are your arguments and my responses \"Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap.\" There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. \"Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks.\" Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5\"40 mM.' [1] \"You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive.\" Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. \"bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not\" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...","This House would monetize water Good day, The resolution that stands before us today is THW monetize water and we on side opp strongly disagree. For the reasons I will now state for you. 1. Water is a human right Water is a human right we should not be able to sell it just as we do net sell air This is absolutely ridiculous water is a right not a product we can sell We need water to survive and so we should be monitoring the use of water not Selling it 2. What about less privleged people What happens in third world countries where people can barely afford food and homes never mind the price of water wich by the way is 1Million times the price of tap water. people are dying from no clean water and we want to sell it to them? This is infair and unjust. 3. There is no garuntee of cleanliness Bottled water is often just tap water that is slightly filtered and given a fancy package plus there is still no garuntee that the water provided will be 100% pure and clean no matter what it says on the package people can still keep dying of these water realated parasites and even worse they will be paying for something that could make them sick or even worse kill them This is absolutely unjust and inhumane 4. What about Corp.s If we allow Corparations to gain such a huge resource such as water what is gaurenteeing that they won't take control and make it almost imossible to get enough water We cannot risk this happening For all the reasons I have just stated and many more this resolution Must and SURLEY will FALL Thank you","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) There is no argument for this, stop trolling or I will get my friends to vote for me.","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) I have PM'ed the admin, and he said that this counts as a serious debate, and that derailing serious debates is a conduct violation. This was not intended to be a troll debate in the first place. Many debaters have already done serious debates on this topic. You are the one who is trolling and derailing it, according to the Admin.","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) I have blocked you for derailing a serious debate. The admin/moderator of this site has said that making your friends vote for you just because they are your friends is a conduct violation. You know what violating site rules means, right? My opponent has refused to argue about anything or make a legitimate case like I did. This is the second time in a row this has happened to me, the last one washttp://www.debate.org...Somebody must be making multiple accounts to prevent me from doing a legitimate debate and therefore dragging down my ELO.","It is time to stop buying bottled water Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. \"Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water.\" Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro\"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.","Bottled Water is better than Tap Water I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting \"Beiber-Fever\". Tap water sucks.","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) \"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli\" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water. ) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E. coli? \"I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. \" Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1. Unicorns have glitter. P2. Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.","Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)","People believe the marketing hype too much so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.","Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.","Which water is the best water Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water :1.Its not a good value2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.","Bottled water is harmful Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): \"(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking.\" Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments. 1. Health benefits. It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing. 2. Environmental effects. I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.\" How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare. Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles. 3. Cost Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits. 4. Taste Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution. Conclusion: Bottled water : Less regulated. No such point was made. Costs more than tap. Not necessarily. Bigger carbon footprint. No such point. Not as good for you as tap. Refuted. Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water. I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.","Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with “spring water” on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don’t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...","It quite simply can taste better. There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.","Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain\"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a \"For drinking only\" sign). A tap\"s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.","plastic bottles should be banned Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!","Bottled Water is better than Tap Water I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is \"federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants\"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. \"fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%\"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b\"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet.\"[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...","Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters.","Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.","Bottled water should be banned i meant bottled water is a scam","Bottled water should be banned Extend arguments. (I really don't know what else to add without repeating the same thing over and over again.","Bottled water should be banned No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.","Bottled water should be banned Bottled water should be banned!","Bottled water should be banned I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned"],"string":"[\n \"Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. Yes the U.S. government does hold more power than the state, but that's not the argument here. The current power over the regulation of water belongs to the state, and to change that would be catastrophic. The system already works, even though there are some struggles, but the gov. can't use one full regulation for all states even though the states are all different in environment. The resolution of the debate states that the government would implement a stricter policy, not just push one, which if it's so important than that's what they should do.\",\n \"Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun No because people do not let plastic out in the sun melt into their drinking water - they are not stupid. And those who do (I can't imagine anyone who does this) probably don't consume it daily - either way, it is not healthy.\",\n \"State as sole supplier is a bad idea You say you are against monopolies but affirm that the 40% percent of the world's water supply is brought to people by TWO corporations. The prop. doesn’t propose to create a monopoly, we just know it is so, as you well confirmed. It IS a natural monopoly because only few have access to it. For us irt would be just perfect that everyone had access to clean and fresh water to survive but sadly it isn’t like that. We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations. Only by applying some control, the state could guarantee that distribution to remote locations are being done and subsidize when need it. It is a state major concern that the population is healthy and safe. Sadly, not the corporations concern. As you said above, Nationalize water would be like closing private schools to ensure education”well, If a person is not happy with their education, it is a personal decision to do something about it. There are books and people that can help them improve their knowledge. Many of the great characters of our history are well known for being self-taught, but no child in history have survive without the concern of someone in giving the water and food that is needed to live and make to a point where the child can decide by himself what does he want for his future.\",\n \"Which water is the best water My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We’re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we’d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.\",\n \"Soft drinks should be sold at school But I still think soft should be banned, because it gives students more harm than good. This argument is all about student not adults!\",\n \"Acess to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity I thank my peer for such an extensive response. My peer has made many good points, and I will attempt to refute each in turn. First I cede that the supply of resources in the planet is indeed finite. Yet is drinking water one of those that need be a problem? There is indeed a solution to the dwindling fresh water supply, a solution that is obvious enough. Considering the majority of the earth is composed of water, we need only look at the oceans to solve the problem. Yes, seawater is not drinkable, but it is as such because of its high saline(salt) content. We are able to desalinate water though, and have been doing as such for hundreds, if not thousands of years, \\\"Desalination/Distillation is one of mankind's earliest forms of water treatment, and it is still a popular treatment solution throughout the world today. In ancient times, many civilizations used this process on their ships to convert sea water into drinking water. Today, desalination plants are used to convert sea water to drinking water on ships and in many arid regions of the world, and to treat water in other areas that is fouled by natural and unnatural contaminants. Distillation is perhaps the one water treatment technology that most completely reduces the widest range of drinking water contaminants.[1]\\\" This solution as simple of a concept as it is, would require a massive global effort. Yet with the stakes being so high as my peer has stated, it is a step that must be taken. My peer also has falsely stated that by negating water as a right we would prevent a nuclear war. Yet even if we were to take this step, other dwindling resources would cause the same outcome. Therefore the situation has turned into one of, \\\"damned if we do, damned if we don't.\\\" Logically speaking, whether or not a solution for water is found, another scarce resource, such as food will cause the same outcome. On the note of climate change, I can only assume my peer realizes that .76 degrees Celsius temperature change within a 100 year period is well within the norm for previous temperature changes in Earths history. Indeed .76 degrees is quite mild as compared to, \\\"The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago.[2]\\\" Yet he is correct in stating that it will affect the worlds freshwater supply negatively. As such we must begin taking steps immediately towards seeking alternative means of freshwater(desalination). The bonus to the warming would be, well, becoming warmer, \\\"Agriculture in the U.S. and other industrialized countries is expected to be less vulnerable to climate change than agriculture in developing nations, especially in the tropics, where farmers may have a limited ability to adapt. In addition, the effects of climate change on U.S. and world agriculture will depend not only on changing climate conditions, but will also depend on the agricultural sector's ability to adapt through future changes in technology, changes in demand for food, and environmental conditions, such as water availability and soil quality. Management practices, the opportunity to switch management and crop selection from season to season, and technology can help the agricultural sector cope with and adapt to climatic variability and change.\\\" One need only be prepared, and if indeed there were such a catastrophe approaching us, the effort must be global. Also one important factor in this, as the planet becomes warmer, habitable land will increase, think Greenland, and Iceland becoming moderate temperature zones. This will increase available land for agriculture as well. If, and I will stress IF, humanity prepares properly, climate change(warming) could be beneficial. I will state that warming has the possibility of being beneficial, if it were to get colder(a distinct possibility) indeed much colder, think mini ice age, and scientists are saying that it is possible, if not likely, \\\"The supposed ‘consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum' in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24' – which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun's surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.[3]\\\" Indeed if this were the case, it would signal an increase in available freshwater from glaciers/snowmelt, but would spell disaster for agriculture, thus shifting the cause of a war from water, to food. Which supports the aforementioned statement, that a nuclear war over resources is likely regardless of whether or not water is scarce. Indeed water is perhaps the one problem that we can easily solve if enough effort is put into it. As we already have to technology to desalinate water in mass quantities, one need only build sufficient facilities to meet the need. Continuing, my peers point is true, that government ability to secure drinking water is indeed failing. Yet this is not because we do not have the ability to meet the need. It is because there is not enough effort to solve the problem. In terms of survival of a species, need wealth even be necessary to undertake steps to solve problems? It shouldn't, yet sadly it is. This is more of a failing on humanities part, not because we do not posess the means and technology to do so, but rather because we do not see the unnecessary deaths of billions to be an urgent issue that must be solved now. A sad point indeed. In terms of population growth, again my peer is correct that this poses a serious problem. Yet again it is a problem that can be solved. Indeed it can be done without harming anyone. A limit upon the number of children a couple(or person) can have is a way to solve it. It would not immediately solve the problem but within a couple of generations population would decrease. Think 1 child for every 2 people, and within a 50 year span one could surmise that a 8 billion pop. could become as little as 4, if not even less as not every person has children. I cant say I wholly agree with that solution morally and ethically, but it is a better alternative to a nuclear war. Finally I will make one additional point, P4: Because we posess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder. 1) http://ga.water.usgs.gov... 2) http://www.sciencedaily.com... 3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.\",\n \"Which water is the best water My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.\",\n \"This house would enforce a complete ban upon alcohol Banning alcohol completely is a preposterous idea. This world has previously attempted to totally prohibit alcohol, and these scenarios have not ended well. I would like to begin by presenting you with two significant substantives which clearly prove that the moot should fall: Alcohol as a poison: I predict that my opponent will attempt to portray alcohol as a \\\"poison.\\\" One of the most common dilemmas causing people to wish for a ban on alcohol is that they view it as a substance that causes great destruction. My position in the debate is not to deny that people can act inappropriately while drinking alcohol. I must, however, prove that it is not the alcohol that is the poison, but the way it is used. Alcohol can be beneficial to the human system, a glass of red wine every night is actually recommended by medical professionals to help with the prevention of heart disease. It only becomes unpleasant when it is taken excessively. This is the same with several other foods and drinks: milk is beneficial to the human body, however drinking it in excessive amounts can be harmful. We do not ban milk; why should we ban alcohol? Freedom of Choice: A lot of freedom of choice would be removed from society if alcohol was to be banned entirely. Responsible drinkers would lose their rights simply because others are misusing their alcohol-related rights. This is completely unfair. There are several irresponsible drivers on the road, but cars have not been banned for this reason. Banning alcohol would violate the freedom of responsible drinkers, therefore the moot should fall: alcohol should not be completely banned.\",\n \"water be considered a public good and not be privatized My opponent relies on extreme cases where the government is forced to allow a monopoly to a certain water company. In his video, and in the Cochabamba incident, the local governments needed money. These cases prove that business without the restricting hand of competition can be very corrupt and insensitive. However, the vast majority of water companies have to compete with other water companies, and thus charge low rates for water. My opponent's examples therefore show not that the privatization of water is evil, but that no one company (not even one run by the government) should be put in charge of everyone's water. Thus we should not discourage the privatization of water, but encourage it and create a lot of competition. Competition ensures that prices will be kept low and that quality will continue to increase. My opponent claims that privatization of water will make prices triple, but this would only happen if a certain water company suddenly got a monopoly. Plus, with the average rate in the US being about a quarter of a cent per gallon, a tripled price means almost nothing. Even if you use a lot of water, there is no way you can use more than 1000 gallons a day, which means with a tripled price you would spend no more than $4.50 on water a day. With minimum wage being almost $7 an hour, $4.50 is very affordable. Of my opponent's points, only one can be said to apply to the general public, and not to a few isolated cases. Water is the foundation of life; without it nothing can survive. But that doesn't mean that purified water is a natural right. Developing nations in Africa live on water straight from a water hole. Purified water is a privilege that only the wealthiest of nations can enjoy. It is not a right, but a commodity. Conclusion: All of my contentions stand intact. My opponent's points either apply only to specific cases, or cannot be applied in the context of this debate.\",\n \"Its harmful to the environment You end up with a bottle that needs to be recycled and often isn’t 85% of plastic water bottles become garbage. The bottling companies find it easier and more profitable to let you throw the water containers away and buy a new one each time. About 2 million of them are thrown away every hour. Most bottles sold are actually small sized bottles, increasing the wastage\",\n \"Its no better for you. The source of your bottled water is likely to be the same one that serves your home. Coke revealed last year that the source of it´s highly publicized Dasani Brand water was London's municipal water supply (with a 3000% markup). PepsiCos Aquafina Brand bottled water is treated tap water coming from 11 different wells around the USA. Mostly the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier. Drinking water is better for your teeth as it contains flourides. Bottled water does not.\",\n \"<GY> Water should be Privatized To have a conclusion for this debate, water should not be Privatized because this could lead to water waste. Having water free and open to everyone causes us to lose more water. If anything we should look to purchasing the water saving appliances like China has. It's a wonderful way to save water and would help countries in many ways. However until we work something out it makes no sense. We need to work hard to help the poeple without water and reach out to them. Thank you for listening to my debate.\",\n \"Bottled Water is better than Tap Water \\\"Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD\\\"Oh...now I feel silly...I don't get sarcasm, so I am just going to go on with this debate like its cereal. Nom Nom Nom. Tap water has been shown to cure AIDS in unicorns.\",\n \"People believe the marketing hype too much Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.\",\n \"It quite simply can taste better. Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste.\",\n \"Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda Although you are valid on your thoughts, you are not seeing the big picture. I do not believe banning soda from children will solve any problems. If a parent is (unlikely) able to keep a child from having soda, they will be exposed to it later on in life because of its prevalence in society. I believe the only way to take the problems of soda out of the picture is to take soda out of American society. Overall, I believe denying soda to a toddler does not avoid any life long problems.\",\n \"<GY> Water should be Privatized To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society. 1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard. 2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle. 3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need. Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.\",\n \"SUMMATION As debate began, the prop team pointed out the importance of water in human lives. It is is the most essential element, next to air, to human life; the body usually cannot survive longer than several days without water. People have survive a hunger strike and have last several weeks, but without water a person would only last approximately a week. Since water is such an important component to us, it would make sense that the quality of the water should be just as important as the quantity. Drinking water should always be clean and free of contaminants to ensure proper health and wellness. Basically, the consumption of clean water is a human right, as well as a health issue and team supports the complete ownership and supply to be from states. The main reason is because governments are everywhere, caring for their people and not worrying for investors, profit and income goals. This team understands the real situation with the resource. The availability of water is decreasing and the originals sources of water in the world are slowly disappearing. Until technology is accessible to everyone, governments should guaranteed the supply of water to the people. The opp team kept defending the idea that privatization was the answer of the problem, because it would give a better quality service and will have the opportunity to choose from different choices, depending on the prices the can afford. The opp insist that monopoly is not an option but already 40% of the water belong to 2 big companies. But we don´t think is as simple as that. Corporations can have access to technology and they may have better ways to get invest in it, but the reality is that the pursue a profit and when there is no business, there is no progress. States should have the option of taking some control over this possession and make it a deal for everyone needed. This problem is very important and we are dealing with it today. Maybe in a couple of years, thing will change but in the present, human lives will never loose against corporate profits. That´s why prop wan this debate.\",\n \"water be considered a public good and not be privatized While water is the source of life, it does not come free of charge. For this reason I support the privatization of water. Contention 1: no economic difference between public and private For water to be fit for human consumption, it must be purified to remove all the toxins and parasitic creatures that inhabit it. This purification process is not free of charge, and thus we do not get our water free of charge whether we get our water from the government or from a private business. If we get water from a private business, we get a monthly water bill. If we get our water from the government, we get an increased monthly tax rate. Thus there is no real economic difference between getting our water from the government and getting our water from a private company. We might as well keep the status quo and have private companies provide us with water. Contention 2: private companies will continuously better purifying technology Private companies are motivated by economic profit. One of the best ways to ensure economic profit is to make one's product better than the competition's. Water companies are continuously researching ways to make water cheaper, cleaner, tastier, and more accessible than the competition, ensuring that the quality of our water continuously gets better. That would not happen if our government supplied us with water, since the government does not make money off of water, and thus would not be motivated to improve its quality. Contention 3: water is affordable The Cochabamba incident was a scandalous incident of corruption, but we must remember that such cases are rare, since otherwise there would be revolts everywhere protesting the price of water. Bechtel Corp was able to charge very high prices for water because of a) lack of competition, and b) backing from the World Bank. While the incident proves that the World Bank and Bechtel Corp are corrupt, it does not prove that business in general is corrupt and cannot provide water at affordable prices. In the US, 1000 gallons of water cost $1.50 [1] and we can expect similar prices elsewhere. Sources: [1] http://www.fcwa.org...\",\n \"Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0\",\n \"plastic bottles should be banned Okay. So, the way I see it, you're saying that we should get rid of plastics because there is some sort of new material. But, if we were to ban all plastic bottles, or plastics overall, then where would we put the plastic? Its not like we have huge landfills laying around where we can dump the billions of pounds of plastic. So, where would we put the plastic? Also, what about the plastic currently in circulation? How would we deal with that plastic? So we are killing animals and destroying the environment, and I am admittedly against this as well. But face it: if we're going to eliminate all the plastic, we have to consider the cost, as well as where it would be relocated to. I look forward to seeing your response!\",\n \"Soft drinks should be sold at school School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds, schools could sell healthier foods for their student to eat and could earn heaps more money than selling soft drinks. I strongly believe that World's governments should banned or restricted soft drinks and alcohol, because it is harmful to yourself and the government. Government shouldn't banned drugs, because drugs only harm yourself, not others; I am sure people could make right choices for themselves not others. By the way, I still confidently thought soft drinks id bad for all of us, because of the nasty ingredients the Coca-Cola company has put into it to harm students and adults. Soft drinks should be banned!!!\",\n \"It is time to stop buying bottled water Its harmful to the environment\",\n \"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence. Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it. Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide: Humans are made up mostly of it. The earth's surface is made up mostly of it. It can be used as a coolant. All plant and animal life requires it to live. It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages. It is what we clean ourselves with. It's fun and good exercise to swim in it. Yes, water can do many harmful things. Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic. Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life. Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough. Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon. The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban. The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors. So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that. Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet. Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems). And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water. Your move.\",\n \"You choose, I choose. The resolution is: \\\"American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply.\\\" This is country specific because third world countries clearly need flouridated water supplies. My opponent has chosen Pro and this is split BOP. My opponent reserves the right to swap positions if he wants to in the first round. I am prepared to debate either side.\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion. 1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water. 2. All water has impurities. 3. Pure water ideally is tasteless. Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste. Applying this to unicorns. 1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history. 1. Legends have unicorns. 3. Pure history is boring. Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear. Thus, unicorns are not proven. Conclusion: Conduct: Pro He is far more courteous than I. Spelling: Tie There isn\\\"t much in the way of a difference here. Arguments: Con Pro has basically dropped all arguements Sources: Pro Con provides almost no sources.\",\n \"Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water We could, if we could be bothered, take water purification devices with us. The inconvenience suffered would be far preferable than seeing beautiful paradise islands overcome by plastic bottles, as has happened in Thailand to my knowledge and I'm sure other places too. We have a responsibility when we travel, the responsibility to leave the place as we found it - as much as we possibly can. Dumping water bottles ruins an environment for decades to come. Taking our own means of purifying water is the responsible thing to do.\",\n \"Hydroxyl Acid Should Be Banned I contend that Hydroxyl acid should not be banned for the simple fact that it is WATER.......\",\n \"Which water is the best water Bottled water is healthier and better than filtered water\",\n \"Its no better for you. The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are \\\"mineral\\\" or \\\"spring\\\" waters. For a water to possess the name of \\\"mineral\\\" or \\\"spring\\\" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.\",\n \"Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity Yeah, so just don't vote on this debate xD\",\n \"It is time to stop buying bottled water Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water\",\n \"Soda should be banned Though soda by no means should be banned forever, I must ask, are we debating about schools or all of life?\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful Round 1 is accept Rounds 2&3 are arguments and and rebuttals Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions\",\n \"Water should not be privatized Round 1 is for accepting only. Con may not post any entirely new arguments in Round 4 (though can post new rebuttals etc). I will be arguing that water should not be privatized. Con must defend the position that water should be privatized.\",\n \"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned First, thank you Who for taking and responding this debate so quickly. I'm glad, Who, that you knew exactly what dihydrogen monoxide is. While I was hoping for someone who didn't know, I am prepared to refute my claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. Yes, Dihydrogen monoxide is hydric acid, H20, or water . However, a qualification has not been set to what it should be banned from, to, or from where. Actually gathering up all of the dihydrogen monoxide in this world would be imposible, as there is no container big enough to fit all of the water in the world simultaneously. According to http://www.dhmo.org... , Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made. However, fictional and non-fictional, I will limit this debate showing why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned in any form, thus as the resolution does not qualify that \\\"all\\\" dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. I propose that if I find any reason why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, I win the debate. 1. Dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from all mogwai. After watching Gremlins, I would strongly suggest that dihydrogen monoxide NOT be placed on any mogwai, for any reason, what so ever. In spite of the fact that this causes mogwai to reproduce, the potential for harm from one mogwai can be detrimental to society. This can clearly be seen in the Gremlin series of movies. On a side note, I'm sure that all wicked witches, regardless of their directionality, would support a ban of dihydrogen monoxide, as that book and movie \\\"The Wizard of Oz\\\" has clearly shown that when placed upon the skin of a wicked witch, it causes almost certain death. However, I am not a proponent of wicked witches, so I do not plan on supporting this stance. 2. Contaminated dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from drinking and entering all other sources In third world countires, it is determined that bad drinking water kills 4000 children a day. http://www.unicef.org... Additionally, grey-water runoff from farms, factories, and sewer drains causes a contamination of drinking water supplies making water undrinkable and potentially carcinogenic. \\\"Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life.\\\" Yes, dihydrogen monoxide does in fact contribute to our warmth and weather patterns. But it is also a leading cause of damages in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and various other weather related phenomena. Is rain not dihydrogen monoxide? The last time I went out in the rain I'm pretty sure it converted to water. Please inform me if someone else has had any experiences of being rained on by nature by something other than water. \\\"Perhaps the reason we find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water\\\". One of the leading causes of tumors is contaminated dihydrogen monoxide. While I will agree that it is not dihydrogen monoxide in its pure form that is causing the cancer; instead, it is the vector. Many communities already have a ban on dihydrogen monoxide if the chemicals in it are not safe for human consumption. 3. A ban on dihydrogen monoxide does not necessarily mean a ban of the chemical, rather a ban on the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Frequently, during summer months, many states, counties, and municipalities impose bans on water. This is due to the shortage of dihydrogen monoxide, not the complete prohibition of the substance. Since this is done to preserve the continued supply of water, the con is suggesting that in times of drought, we should not ban or ration water supplies. Most importantly, the con is suggesting that we never place a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. While I will admit that it is a vital and necessary component in all this organic, Who is suggesting that no ban should, in any form, be placed upon it.\",\n \"Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water This doesn't apply to most Western countries though and people there could easily rely on tap water for their needs. << wrong side of the debate :/\",\n \"Its harmful to the environment There are environmental costs to purifying tap water too. Not to forget the toxic materials necessary to pump and deliver the water to the tap. Moreover the problems you raise are more with the bottles themselves and how we dispose of them than with the concept of bottled water per se. Biodegradable corn starch 'polymers' or a more responsible attitude to recycling would also solve the problem.\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) ik you were about to ask me this, i was to tell you this is a troll question.\",\n \"Which water is the best water The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. \\\"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.\\\"[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn\\\"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts \\\"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled.\\\"[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. \\\"D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.\\\"[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) HA ARE YOU KIDDING ME? OF COURCE TAP WATER IS BETTER THAN BOTTLED WATER, WHO WOULDN'T THINK THAT. RETARDS OF COURSE.\",\n \"Which water is the best water You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it’s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.\",\n \"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is \\\"prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned\\\" Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job! Seriously, though. MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so. But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - \\\"Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made.\\\" Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time. I assure you that if the words \\\"Dihydrogen Monoxide\\\" had been changed to \\\"water\\\" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%. Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them. Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.]. Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did. And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else]. Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance. I'll go over this one more time. \\\"Dihydrogen Monoxide\\\" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X. Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. \\\"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned\\\" implies that overall, it should be banned. Consider this hypothetical topic: \\\"People should be brutally slain\\\" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because \\\"People\\\" refers to people in general. Here's another one. \\\"I'm better than my opponent.\\\" PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING, he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing \\\"Dihydrogen Monoxide\\\" to mean \\\"Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination\\\", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof. Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) You call me trolling? Look who is talking, I should report you. This debate has nothing to say. Of cource Tap Water is better. Who wouldn't agree?\",\n \"Lift soda ban from schools! I think schools should lift bans on sodas and sugary drinks because some children can contain themselves after a Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, PowerAde, and Sprite. The only drinks that should be banned are energy drinks like Red Bull, Monster, MIO ENERGY, etc. because they give people lots of energy and Mountain Dew which contains Yellow 5 which increases behavior issues.\",\n \"Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles You will be the death of us all. If water was sold in plastic bottles, people would be forced to drink tap water and use other containers. You just can't produce enough glass to meet the demand. What's more, glass is extremely fragile and will break if I drop it, but plastic bottles won't. I know plastic bottles harm the environment, but glass bottles would take up even more energy and resources, which would do equal or more damage to the environment. Plastic bottles for life!\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful Clearly me and my opponent have a difference of opinion and for this reason I will end this debate.\",\n \"Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. The fact that anybody would want the gov. to regulate the quality of water is insanity. The U.S. gov. has made enough mistakes already and this doesn't need to add to the list. All they would do is screw it up, currently water quality is decided by the state, but if the gov. would take over full control they would first off be overwhelmed. Also every state is different, you cant have the same regulations in CA as you do in PA, but the gov. would most likely just blanket all regulations under one. Also everyone has a different idea of water quality. There is an 8$ bottle of water that is black with dirt but its considered \\\"healthy\\\". Listen everyone is different so if the people are ok with drinking sh** then I have no problem with it. (If you have any other aruements in the con of this topic please let me know!)\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Thanks for a well written response! \\\"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\\\" So now Pro is admitting to something. I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid. \\\"One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle.\\\" Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't. \\\"The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates. Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA\\\"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, \\\"the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children\\\".\\\"[1] \\\"E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are.\\\" Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2] \\\"Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless.\\\" Let's see his refutation: \\\"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\\\" The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) This was not a troll debate in the first place. Thanks for wasting my time.\",\n \"Soda should be banned Soda shouldn't be banned because part of human rights is we choose what we eat and drink so banning soda would take those rights away. Also, as soon as soda is banned, a new junk will take its place that is maybe even worse so that we will never be rid of un healthy food Furthermore, banning soda would make lots of people lose jobs which our society would have to deal with. This is why it is silly to ban soda, we have bigger problems to solve!\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful In response to my opponents challenge. \\\"Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. \\\" \\\"The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water.\\\"(1) \\\"The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. \\\" (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error. Now to the real debate. \\\"It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing.\\\" The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks. Plus, check out this: \\\"In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\\\"[3] Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated. Bottled water: Isn\\\"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container. Environmental effects argument: \\\"How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare.\\\" It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL. \\\"Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles.\\\" Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2] How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it. Cost Argument \\\"Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water.\\\" Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store? \\\"Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits.\\\" Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1] Taste \\\"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\\\" This still does not prove my taste argument wrong. \\\"Less regulated. No such point was made.\\\" It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1] \\\"Costs more than tap. Not necessarily.\\\" No proof given. \\\"Bigger carbon footprint. No such point.\\\" Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1] As you can see, I did have such point. \\\"Not as good for you as tap. Refuted.\\\" It still is not tested for E.coli. [1] \\\"Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water.\\\" No refutation given at all. Conclusion My opponent has not given a single source on this debate. No evidence given from opponent. My opponent did not refute point 4. (No personal attack intended) [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com...\",\n \"Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org...\",\n \"Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Here are your arguments and my responses \\\"Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap.\\\" There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. \\\"Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks.\\\" Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5\\\"40 mM.' [1] \\\"You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive.\\\" Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. \\\"bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not\\\" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...\",\n \"This House would monetize water Good day, The resolution that stands before us today is THW monetize water and we on side opp strongly disagree. For the reasons I will now state for you. 1. Water is a human right Water is a human right we should not be able to sell it just as we do net sell air This is absolutely ridiculous water is a right not a product we can sell We need water to survive and so we should be monitoring the use of water not Selling it 2. What about less privleged people What happens in third world countries where people can barely afford food and homes never mind the price of water wich by the way is 1Million times the price of tap water. people are dying from no clean water and we want to sell it to them? This is infair and unjust. 3. There is no garuntee of cleanliness Bottled water is often just tap water that is slightly filtered and given a fancy package plus there is still no garuntee that the water provided will be 100% pure and clean no matter what it says on the package people can still keep dying of these water realated parasites and even worse they will be paying for something that could make them sick or even worse kill them This is absolutely unjust and inhumane 4. What about Corp.s If we allow Corparations to gain such a huge resource such as water what is gaurenteeing that they won't take control and make it almost imossible to get enough water We cannot risk this happening For all the reasons I have just stated and many more this resolution Must and SURLEY will FALL Thank you\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) There is no argument for this, stop trolling or I will get my friends to vote for me.\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) I have PM'ed the admin, and he said that this counts as a serious debate, and that derailing serious debates is a conduct violation. This was not intended to be a troll debate in the first place. Many debaters have already done serious debates on this topic. You are the one who is trolling and derailing it, according to the Admin.\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) I have blocked you for derailing a serious debate. The admin/moderator of this site has said that making your friends vote for you just because they are your friends is a conduct violation. You know what violating site rules means, right? My opponent has refused to argue about anything or make a legitimate case like I did. This is the second time in a row this has happened to me, the last one washttp://www.debate.org...Somebody must be making multiple accounts to prevent me from doing a legitimate debate and therefore dragging down my ELO.\",\n \"It is time to stop buying bottled water Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. \\\"Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water.\\\" Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro\\\"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.\",\n \"Bottled Water is better than Tap Water I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting \\\"Beiber-Fever\\\". Tap water sucks.\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) \\\"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli\\\" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water. ) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E. coli? \\\"I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. \\\" Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1. Unicorns have glitter. P2. Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.\",\n \"Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)\",\n \"People believe the marketing hype too much so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.\",\n \"Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.\",\n \"Which water is the best water Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water :1.Its not a good value2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.\",\n \"Bottled water is harmful Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): \\\"(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking.\\\" Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments. 1. Health benefits. It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing. 2. Environmental effects. I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, \\\"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.\\\" How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare. Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles. 3. Cost Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits. 4. Taste Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution. Conclusion: Bottled water : Less regulated. No such point was made. Costs more than tap. Not necessarily. Bigger carbon footprint. No such point. Not as good for you as tap. Refuted. Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water. I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.\",\n \"Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with “spring water” on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don’t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...\",\n \"It quite simply can taste better. There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.\",\n \"Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain\\\"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a \\\"For drinking only\\\" sign). A tap\\\"s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.\",\n \"plastic bottles should be banned Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!\",\n \"Bottled Water is better than Tap Water I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is \\\"federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants\\\"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. \\\"fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%\\\"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b\\\"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet.\\\"[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...\",\n \"Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters.\",\n \"Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned i meant bottled water is a scam\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned Extend arguments. (I really don't know what else to add without repeating the same thing over and over again.\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying \\\"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned Bottled water should be banned!\",\n \"Bottled water should be banned I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":42,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should election day be a national holiday?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.\nHistory: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.","Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day\n1. \"I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor\". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. \"...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state\"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. \"Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to.\" Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. \"Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well.\" Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. \"For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both.\" Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. \"Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)\" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. \"EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for\" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. \"Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.","Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory\nThanks, Philo. =Pro case=FrameworkPro argues that the only concern that should govern policy is if that policy is \"democratic\". This is absurd--democracies are governments and as I articulated in my framework, governance is fundamentally a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Good governments are ones which make acceptable trade offs on this scale. Pro never explains why we should care if a democracy is \"good\" or not. It's vastly preferable to be ruled by a just king than a tyrannical president. It's vastly preferable to disenfranchise the 51% that would vote to exterminate the 49% even though this would be less democratic. Good governance is more important. The question then becomes if the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its violations of individual autonomy and as we will see, the answer is clearly no.I. TurnoutI do not concede that high voter turnout is inherently good. In Weimar Germany I would've preferred the Jews had higher turnout than members of the Nazi party did, regardless of what the actual opinion of the broader electorate was. We should value good government, not necessarily whatever happens to be the most \"democratic\" policy. Ironically, Pro argues that democracy means \"all\" the people are involved in the governing process and then immediately contradicts himself by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule. This is a huge blow for Pro because it destroys his argument about how democracy is a joke is we don't involve everyone. I don't want people who can't name the vice president to decide elections. Pro argues that if everyone doesn't vote a government doesn't have a mandate. There's no evidence Pro cited of governments under compulsory voting regimes having greater legitimacy than governments who don't force their citizens at gunpoint to endorse the system. Outside of nations with compulsory voting it's incredibly rare for the outright majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party but this has no effect on the governments ability to rule. Pros argument here also assumes a two party system--in a multi party system it would be incredibly unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. Are these governments any less legitimate? Pro certainly hasn't proven so. Considering that he brings it up later Pro clearly puts great stock in his mandate argument but I genuinely don't know how to reply because it's simply not warranted at all. Where are all challenges to sovereignty to these governments without mandates? The strongest language from Pro on this contention is that a plurality rather than a majority \"somewhat\" contradicts democracy. This timid, unassertive word choice is extremely telling--even Pro himself can't get himself to fully commit to this argument. Even if you buy that high turnout is good, state coercion is just not the best way to achieve this goal when we have options like tax credits. II. Accessibility to votingAbsolutely nothing in this contention is unique ad governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting. Making election days national holidays, extending early voting and same day registration are all discussed and worthy reforms, but compulsory voting is manufacturing a tornado to blow out a match. In fact, I can easily turn this argument: It IS hard to vote sometimes, but nothing in the resolution presumes that issue will be resolved. Pro only gets to assume that he succeeds in adding a legal obligation to vote, not that he makes it easier to vote. He's going to punish all of those hard working or disabled people he lauds. III. EducationPro has no evidence linking compulsory voting with a better educated electorate. Pro says that in a free society it's easy to ignore politics but thinks that forcing people to show up once every four years to randomly select candidates would turn us all into political junkies. In the United States, the election is all anybody hears about on the news for about two years before it even happens (this process has already begun). Social media, Internet access, and incessant news coverage make it almost impossible to not learn about politics through sheer osmosis. If people are tuning out, it's for a reason--probably because they realize that their vote doesn't matter in the slightest and have more important things to do in their lives than to listen to corporate shills lie. There's absolutely nothing in our modern world that stymies our natural curiosity, compulsory voting wouldn't make a difference. IV. ExtremismPros card on extremism refers specifically to primary elections[1]. Primary elections are the elections where party members select the slate of candidates for the general election--compulsory voting wouldn't solve for this because voting in primaries will *always* be voluntary unless Pro wants to argue that the government should force people to join political parties. The solutions suggested by the article, such as voting by mail and same day voter registration are far superior to Pros plan. I can't emphasize this enough, the article specifically lays the blame for polarization on primary elections so Pro gets no impact here--only solutions that increase *voluntary* turnout (like tax credits) would help here. Moreover, other than the weak democracy argument Pro doesn't explain why having politically motivated people voting more often is a bad thing, nor how having representatives with convictions (\"extremists\") is a bad thing. The article cites the example of Chris Murphy who won a low turnout primary and quickly became one of the most liberal senators and just assumes this is bad. Why is having one of the most liberal states in the country represented by a liberal a bad thing? Pro doesn't seem to understand that the moderates that are \"unrepresented\" voluntarily ceded their right to vote. They aren't underrepresented because they never seeked representation in the first place. The election of ideologues and extremists is often an act of protest. It's likely that compulsory voting would actually increase the probability of electing ideologues as leagues of potential voters who sit out elections out of disgust would now be forced to make a choice.=My case=CounterplanPro argues that my plan of tax credits would cost money. Actually it would grow the economy due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is a phenomenon whereby investment in certain sectors yields returns that are higher than the initial investment. So if a multiplier was 1.1, an investment of 1 billion would yield 1.1 billion. A paper for the United States Conference of Mayors[2] explains that the Earned Income Tax Credit for low to moderate income earners, a payment similar to my voting tax credit proposal, has a multiplier somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Pro claims that a tax credit would cost a lot of money. On the contrary, the credit would grow the economy by something between 1.5 and 2 times the money put in. This is a completely independent reason to vote Con. Even if you don't see any ethical or practical issue with compulsory voting, Pro doesn't grow the economy. I do. I. UndemocraticPro cites a poll showing Australians favor mandatory voting. He asks \"[Why] should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?\" It shouldn't! That's exactly the point! Somehow Pro entirely missed the crux of my argument, which is that the resolution should be rejected as it's better to let nations decide their own policies for themselves. This is the democratic position. Australia is not mine to rule, and while I think I could make convincing arguments to them as to why compulsory voting is bad policy, ultimately the decision is up to them. Pro, on the other hand, believes that nations he has never heard of and knows nothing about have a moral imperative to implement this policy even if it would be disastrous for them. Pro totally missed the point of my neocolonialism argument. The problem with his position is its blanket assumption--the issue is with this concept that nations we couldn't identify on a map are ours to rule. This type of hubris, that we can legislate just as well for anybody as we can for our own nations and that our policies have to work for them is the type of thinking that led to colonialism. Reject colonialism. Reject the resolution. Let nations decide their own policies for themselves. Despite his emphasis on democratic ideals, this autonomy is by far the more democratic position. II/III RightsPro does not argue that these rights don't exist, he just argues that people can just spoil their ballots. This isn't always true--it's unlikely, for example, that one could spoil their vote in electronic voting machines that wouldn't allow you to select more than one candidate. Moreover, many people wouldn't know how to spoil their votes or would believe it to be illegal (\"Is it illegal to spoil your vote?\" brings 125,000 hits on Google). To make sure that none of these rights are violated would require a concerted effort by the government to bring to the voters attention their ability to spoil their ballots, which defeats the purpose of forcing them to vote when they could just allow them to abstain instead. Moreover spoiling your ballot is not a true act of political neutrality--spoilt ballots are typically viewed as protest ballots[3]. The only truly neutral act is to not vote. Pro does not dispute that we should use the Sherbert Test: forcing people to violate their religion and hoping that they'll know to spoil their ballots is not the *least intrusive* means of achieving high turnout. Allowing them to abstain and encouraging voluntary voting through tax credits is.Pro removes legitimitate means of political expression and forces us all to give consent to the system. I'll discuss the rest of my case and crystallize the debate in the next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...","Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution\nIf the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.","Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day\nThere are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments","Lincoln-Douglas Debate!\nFDR once declared: \"Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.\" Because I agree, I affirm the resolution. Definitions: \" Democracy - democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens (Encarta) \" Vote \" an opinion cast in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office (American Heritage) \" Ought \" expresses desirability (Encarta) \" Compulsory \" mandatory; obligatory (Merriam Webster) I Value Societal Welfare, defined as the functionality and health of a society and the wellbeing of its inhabitants. When discussing a democracy and its decision-making process, we are discussing things that will affect the entire nation, requiring an analysis of the impacts on society. I offer the Criterion of Evaluative Consequentialism, defined as \"that which maximizes the desired value to be best.\" In this case, the desired value is democracy, as implied by the resolution. The resolution revolves squarely around the notion of compulsory voting and its impact on and legitimacy with democratic governance. Thus, what is most likely to maximize democracy is best. Democracy also has a direct link with my value, as explained by Prof. Michael McFaul: \"'democracy provides the best institutional arrangement for holding rulers accountable to the people. If leaders must compete for popular support to stay in power, they will respond to their citizens\" preferences. Rulers who do not need popular support to gain or maintain power will likely be more responsive to whatever group \" the family, the military, the mullahs, or the communist party \" controls their fate. The larger the number of people needed to elect a leader, the more inclined that leader will be to pursue public policies that benefit the majority. Not surprisingly, therefore, democracies \"have consistently generated superior levels of social welfare\" compared to autocracies at similar income levels. Second, the institutions of democracy prevent abusive rule, constrain bad government, and provide a mechanism for getting rid of corrupt or ineffective leaders. Truly oppressive leaders cannot remain in power for long if they must seek the electoral mandate of those being oppressed. Autocrats face no such constraints. Mass terror and genocide occur in autocracies, not democracies. Democracies do not prevent all abusive behavior, but over the centuries, democratic leaders have unquestionably inflicted less pain and suffering on their people than have autocratic leaders.\" It is my sole contention that compulsory voting is beneficial for the democratic process. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will boost turnout. \"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since.\" [1] \"One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law. Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17% of the world's democratic nations. The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting.\" [2] Sub-point B: Compulsory voting reduces polarization. \"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized - some might say hyper-polarized - by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook.\" [3] Sub-point C: Compulsory voting reduces violence. \"State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society \"in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives\".\" [4] \"The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate\"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes \"the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change ...\"An apathetic electorate\"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely.\" [5] \"Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives\"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent\"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest.\" [6] Sub-point D: A fairer campaign process would arise. \"In addition to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect benefits. First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics\"get-out-the-vote money could be shifted to other forms of campaign spending, but not all of it. A significant amount of spending on getting out the vote comes from groups known as 527s\"nonpartisan groups that are not subject to campaign finance laws. These groups are limited in their abilities to campaign expressly in favor of candidates\"With this implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and be less beholden to donors\"Compulsory voting would bring a new population into play, and would force political actors to make changes in their campaign methods in order to take these new voters into account.\" [2] Sub-point E: Special interests will be reduced. \"The existence of compulsory voting reduces the potential for fiscal spillovers between voters and non-voters and consequently reduces pressure groups\" incentives to expend resources on lobbying\"interest groups have more incentive to organize and spend lobbying resources advocating policies than taxpayers have to organize against these policies. Unorganized individual voters have little incentive to become informed or participate in the political process given the costs of voting relative to the small expected benefit. As more voters are coerced into the process, voting by the cost-bearing group will rise more than proportionately, simply because it is larger in size than the benefit-receiving group.\" [7] Thus, I affirm. [1] Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 [2] Harvard Law Review, 2007, \"The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States,\" 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 [3] Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, \"Opt-Out Voting,\" Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 [4] Jason Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, \"Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation,\" St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 [5] Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, \"Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election,\" 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 [6] Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, \"The case for compulsory voting,\" Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 [7] Alberto Chong & Mauricio Olivera, Inter-American Development Bank & George Mason University, 2006, \"On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries,\" Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper #533, May, [http://www.iadb.org...], p.9"],"string":"[\n \"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.\\nHistory: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.\",\n \"Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day\\n1. \\\"I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor\\\". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. \\\"...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state\\\"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. \\\"Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to.\\\" Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. \\\"Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well.\\\" Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. \\\"For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both.\\\" Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. \\\"Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)\\\" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. \\\"EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for\\\" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. \\\"Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\\\" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.\",\n \"Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory\\nThanks, Philo. =Pro case=FrameworkPro argues that the only concern that should govern policy is if that policy is \\\"democratic\\\". This is absurd--democracies are governments and as I articulated in my framework, governance is fundamentally a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Good governments are ones which make acceptable trade offs on this scale. Pro never explains why we should care if a democracy is \\\"good\\\" or not. It's vastly preferable to be ruled by a just king than a tyrannical president. It's vastly preferable to disenfranchise the 51% that would vote to exterminate the 49% even though this would be less democratic. Good governance is more important. The question then becomes if the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its violations of individual autonomy and as we will see, the answer is clearly no.I. TurnoutI do not concede that high voter turnout is inherently good. In Weimar Germany I would've preferred the Jews had higher turnout than members of the Nazi party did, regardless of what the actual opinion of the broader electorate was. We should value good government, not necessarily whatever happens to be the most \\\"democratic\\\" policy. Ironically, Pro argues that democracy means \\\"all\\\" the people are involved in the governing process and then immediately contradicts himself by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule. This is a huge blow for Pro because it destroys his argument about how democracy is a joke is we don't involve everyone. I don't want people who can't name the vice president to decide elections. Pro argues that if everyone doesn't vote a government doesn't have a mandate. There's no evidence Pro cited of governments under compulsory voting regimes having greater legitimacy than governments who don't force their citizens at gunpoint to endorse the system. Outside of nations with compulsory voting it's incredibly rare for the outright majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party but this has no effect on the governments ability to rule. Pros argument here also assumes a two party system--in a multi party system it would be incredibly unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. Are these governments any less legitimate? Pro certainly hasn't proven so. Considering that he brings it up later Pro clearly puts great stock in his mandate argument but I genuinely don't know how to reply because it's simply not warranted at all. Where are all challenges to sovereignty to these governments without mandates? The strongest language from Pro on this contention is that a plurality rather than a majority \\\"somewhat\\\" contradicts democracy. This timid, unassertive word choice is extremely telling--even Pro himself can't get himself to fully commit to this argument. Even if you buy that high turnout is good, state coercion is just not the best way to achieve this goal when we have options like tax credits. II. Accessibility to votingAbsolutely nothing in this contention is unique ad governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting. Making election days national holidays, extending early voting and same day registration are all discussed and worthy reforms, but compulsory voting is manufacturing a tornado to blow out a match. In fact, I can easily turn this argument: It IS hard to vote sometimes, but nothing in the resolution presumes that issue will be resolved. Pro only gets to assume that he succeeds in adding a legal obligation to vote, not that he makes it easier to vote. He's going to punish all of those hard working or disabled people he lauds. III. EducationPro has no evidence linking compulsory voting with a better educated electorate. Pro says that in a free society it's easy to ignore politics but thinks that forcing people to show up once every four years to randomly select candidates would turn us all into political junkies. In the United States, the election is all anybody hears about on the news for about two years before it even happens (this process has already begun). Social media, Internet access, and incessant news coverage make it almost impossible to not learn about politics through sheer osmosis. If people are tuning out, it's for a reason--probably because they realize that their vote doesn't matter in the slightest and have more important things to do in their lives than to listen to corporate shills lie. There's absolutely nothing in our modern world that stymies our natural curiosity, compulsory voting wouldn't make a difference. IV. ExtremismPros card on extremism refers specifically to primary elections[1]. Primary elections are the elections where party members select the slate of candidates for the general election--compulsory voting wouldn't solve for this because voting in primaries will *always* be voluntary unless Pro wants to argue that the government should force people to join political parties. The solutions suggested by the article, such as voting by mail and same day voter registration are far superior to Pros plan. I can't emphasize this enough, the article specifically lays the blame for polarization on primary elections so Pro gets no impact here--only solutions that increase *voluntary* turnout (like tax credits) would help here. Moreover, other than the weak democracy argument Pro doesn't explain why having politically motivated people voting more often is a bad thing, nor how having representatives with convictions (\\\"extremists\\\") is a bad thing. The article cites the example of Chris Murphy who won a low turnout primary and quickly became one of the most liberal senators and just assumes this is bad. Why is having one of the most liberal states in the country represented by a liberal a bad thing? Pro doesn't seem to understand that the moderates that are \\\"unrepresented\\\" voluntarily ceded their right to vote. They aren't underrepresented because they never seeked representation in the first place. The election of ideologues and extremists is often an act of protest. It's likely that compulsory voting would actually increase the probability of electing ideologues as leagues of potential voters who sit out elections out of disgust would now be forced to make a choice.=My case=CounterplanPro argues that my plan of tax credits would cost money. Actually it would grow the economy due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is a phenomenon whereby investment in certain sectors yields returns that are higher than the initial investment. So if a multiplier was 1.1, an investment of 1 billion would yield 1.1 billion. A paper for the United States Conference of Mayors[2] explains that the Earned Income Tax Credit for low to moderate income earners, a payment similar to my voting tax credit proposal, has a multiplier somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Pro claims that a tax credit would cost a lot of money. On the contrary, the credit would grow the economy by something between 1.5 and 2 times the money put in. This is a completely independent reason to vote Con. Even if you don't see any ethical or practical issue with compulsory voting, Pro doesn't grow the economy. I do. I. UndemocraticPro cites a poll showing Australians favor mandatory voting. He asks \\\"[Why] should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?\\\" It shouldn't! That's exactly the point! Somehow Pro entirely missed the crux of my argument, which is that the resolution should be rejected as it's better to let nations decide their own policies for themselves. This is the democratic position. Australia is not mine to rule, and while I think I could make convincing arguments to them as to why compulsory voting is bad policy, ultimately the decision is up to them. Pro, on the other hand, believes that nations he has never heard of and knows nothing about have a moral imperative to implement this policy even if it would be disastrous for them. Pro totally missed the point of my neocolonialism argument. The problem with his position is its blanket assumption--the issue is with this concept that nations we couldn't identify on a map are ours to rule. This type of hubris, that we can legislate just as well for anybody as we can for our own nations and that our policies have to work for them is the type of thinking that led to colonialism. Reject colonialism. Reject the resolution. Let nations decide their own policies for themselves. Despite his emphasis on democratic ideals, this autonomy is by far the more democratic position. II/III RightsPro does not argue that these rights don't exist, he just argues that people can just spoil their ballots. This isn't always true--it's unlikely, for example, that one could spoil their vote in electronic voting machines that wouldn't allow you to select more than one candidate. Moreover, many people wouldn't know how to spoil their votes or would believe it to be illegal (\\\"Is it illegal to spoil your vote?\\\" brings 125,000 hits on Google). To make sure that none of these rights are violated would require a concerted effort by the government to bring to the voters attention their ability to spoil their ballots, which defeats the purpose of forcing them to vote when they could just allow them to abstain instead. Moreover spoiling your ballot is not a true act of political neutrality--spoilt ballots are typically viewed as protest ballots[3]. The only truly neutral act is to not vote. Pro does not dispute that we should use the Sherbert Test: forcing people to violate their religion and hoping that they'll know to spoil their ballots is not the *least intrusive* means of achieving high turnout. Allowing them to abstain and encouraging voluntary voting through tax credits is.Pro removes legitimitate means of political expression and forces us all to give consent to the system. I'll discuss the rest of my case and crystallize the debate in the next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...\",\n \"Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution\\nIf the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.\",\n \"Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day\\nThere are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments\",\n \"Lincoln-Douglas Debate!\\nFDR once declared: \\\"Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.\\\" Because I agree, I affirm the resolution. Definitions: \\\" Democracy - democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens (Encarta) \\\" Vote \\\" an opinion cast in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office (American Heritage) \\\" Ought \\\" expresses desirability (Encarta) \\\" Compulsory \\\" mandatory; obligatory (Merriam Webster) I Value Societal Welfare, defined as the functionality and health of a society and the wellbeing of its inhabitants. When discussing a democracy and its decision-making process, we are discussing things that will affect the entire nation, requiring an analysis of the impacts on society. I offer the Criterion of Evaluative Consequentialism, defined as \\\"that which maximizes the desired value to be best.\\\" In this case, the desired value is democracy, as implied by the resolution. The resolution revolves squarely around the notion of compulsory voting and its impact on and legitimacy with democratic governance. Thus, what is most likely to maximize democracy is best. Democracy also has a direct link with my value, as explained by Prof. Michael McFaul: \\\"'democracy provides the best institutional arrangement for holding rulers accountable to the people. If leaders must compete for popular support to stay in power, they will respond to their citizens\\\" preferences. Rulers who do not need popular support to gain or maintain power will likely be more responsive to whatever group \\\" the family, the military, the mullahs, or the communist party \\\" controls their fate. The larger the number of people needed to elect a leader, the more inclined that leader will be to pursue public policies that benefit the majority. Not surprisingly, therefore, democracies \\\"have consistently generated superior levels of social welfare\\\" compared to autocracies at similar income levels. Second, the institutions of democracy prevent abusive rule, constrain bad government, and provide a mechanism for getting rid of corrupt or ineffective leaders. Truly oppressive leaders cannot remain in power for long if they must seek the electoral mandate of those being oppressed. Autocrats face no such constraints. Mass terror and genocide occur in autocracies, not democracies. Democracies do not prevent all abusive behavior, but over the centuries, democratic leaders have unquestionably inflicted less pain and suffering on their people than have autocratic leaders.\\\" It is my sole contention that compulsory voting is beneficial for the democratic process. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will boost turnout. \\\"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since.\\\" [1] \\\"One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law. Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17% of the world's democratic nations. The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting.\\\" [2] Sub-point B: Compulsory voting reduces polarization. \\\"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized - some might say hyper-polarized - by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook.\\\" [3] Sub-point C: Compulsory voting reduces violence. \\\"State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society \\\"in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives\\\".\\\" [4] \\\"The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate\\\"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes \\\"the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change ...\\\"An apathetic electorate\\\"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely.\\\" [5] \\\"Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives\\\"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent\\\"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest.\\\" [6] Sub-point D: A fairer campaign process would arise. \\\"In addition to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect benefits. First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics\\\"get-out-the-vote money could be shifted to other forms of campaign spending, but not all of it. A significant amount of spending on getting out the vote comes from groups known as 527s\\\"nonpartisan groups that are not subject to campaign finance laws. These groups are limited in their abilities to campaign expressly in favor of candidates\\\"With this implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and be less beholden to donors\\\"Compulsory voting would bring a new population into play, and would force political actors to make changes in their campaign methods in order to take these new voters into account.\\\" [2] Sub-point E: Special interests will be reduced. \\\"The existence of compulsory voting reduces the potential for fiscal spillovers between voters and non-voters and consequently reduces pressure groups\\\" incentives to expend resources on lobbying\\\"interest groups have more incentive to organize and spend lobbying resources advocating policies than taxpayers have to organize against these policies. Unorganized individual voters have little incentive to become informed or participate in the political process given the costs of voting relative to the small expected benefit. As more voters are coerced into the process, voting by the cost-bearing group will rise more than proportionately, simply because it is larger in size than the benefit-receiving group.\\\" [7] Thus, I affirm. [1] Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 [2] Harvard Law Review, 2007, \\\"The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States,\\\" 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 [3] Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, \\\"Opt-Out Voting,\\\" Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 [4] Jason Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, \\\"Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation,\\\" St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 [5] Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, \\\"Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election,\\\" 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 [6] Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, \\\"The case for compulsory voting,\\\" Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 [7] Alberto Chong & Mauricio Olivera, Inter-American Development Bank & George Mason University, 2006, \\\"On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries,\\\" Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper #533, May, [http://www.iadb.org...], p.9\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["It would be beneficial to the nation (USA) to remove the electoral college system. Getting rid of the electoral college system.... Unconstitutional.","hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small","Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote I was pondering things we could do to increase voter turnout and I came up with this; every election, we require people to deposit a small sum of money to an election bank about a month before an election they're eligible for; maybe only around $7 dollars, or however much they make per hour. This money has no interest on it or anything like it; once they vote, they can withdraw the money they deposited earlier. If they don't vote, it stays in the account, but they cannot withdraw it. Perhaps the money can be collected from their pay check, income taxes; I'm not sure. It's not a fully formed idea ready for implementation, but hopefully you get the gist of it. I was wondering if anyone had any objections or additions to it. Thanks.","The Electoral College should be banned I don't understand this format so I will do it my way C1. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests. When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power.C2. Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign. The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area. C3. Voter fraud If we abolish the Electoral College then there will be riots over who won over voter fraud it will cost the economy about $50 million to investigate,Clean up from riots, Lawsuits, and new ballots for a possible revote.","The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections The Aristotle argument does not pertain to this day and age. The world has changed since his time and so has the world of politics. Recall of elections would be very deficient to our system of government. We already have a huge party divide in the United States and people would try to recall elections all the time. This would be terrible, and nothing would get done. I must explain again why i used the Texas example. It shows how much the people react after little or nothing is done. This does pertain to this debate because it is real Americans, taking real action. Also my opponent added new evidence in the last round, while this is not fair i will still respond. 1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source 2. this would expand to national government and would grind the government to a halt Please pro dont tell me what the American people would do or if they would go along party lines. Pro is not America and can not tell us what America will do. He can present evidence of trends in other places and apply it here but he has not so he cant say that. Texas does pertain as i have shown above. Please read my partisan argument above I reassert myown because my arguments contradict his and therefore are a rebuttal.","The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections The United States is democracy, and it is absolutely unacceptable to deny people the right to a fair vote. Under the 14th amendment, people will have an equal say in the vote. In the United Sates, the breakup of the Nation into the electoral college unfairly harms those who live in republican or democrats dominated States. Besides, there is always the issue of gerrymandering. It is impossible to gerrymander a system in which everyone is put into the same voting area. This means in order to succeed in popular elections in the United States, candidates must appeal to National issues, not just the issues of a small collection of states. Let's take a hypothetical election in the United States. There are only three sates left. California, Texas, and Florida. Texas and California are guaranteed to vote on party lines, but Florida is a swing state. Both politicians will then base their policies and arguments on Florida issues, as those are the only ones that matter in this election. Therefore an electoral college gives to much power to the a small minority of political diverse states. The recount is almost absolutely unnecessary to worry about. We live in a modern age with (potentially) internet voting, digital transaction, and methods. As a programmer, i can tell you that f we embraced slightly newer technology, we could remove any potential of a recount.","There is separation of Church and Sate in the United States. Point One:\"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. \"[1]Said around the United States in almost every school, this pledge has been in existence and has been used widely ever since. Having separation of Church and State means that in a public institution, there should not be any words in a document about any deity or religious belief. Before, the pledge did not have the phase \"under god. \" But, in 1954, Congress put a bill through and it was signed into law, which added this phase. [2] Thus, the government did indeed put forth an action with religion in it. Point Two:\"In God We Trust. \"[3]If you turn around any dollar bill in the United States, you can see this phase above the word \"ONE. \" Currency is only printed by the Federal Reserve Banks, which is a government institution. Not only it is a motto on our dollar bills, but it is also our country's official motto, signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 as a law. This motto comes the bible it self, \"in God I have put my trust;\"(Psalms 56:4. ) The bible is the holy book of Judaism and Christianity. Both are considered religions. Point Three:\"Monday, December 26 : Christmas Day\"[4]This day is a Federal Holiday. In Christianity, it is the day in people believe Jesus was born upon. Most public schools observe this day, along with Easter, the day in which Christians believe Jesus came back to life. Along with this, the white house has a national Christmas tree, which the President lights him self. Other religions have holidays which are school holidays too, such as the New York City system, with a week set aside for Passover, Easter, and Good Friday. [5]Questions for my opponent:1. Why do national holidays have religious roots?2. Why is god stated in many official documents? ------------[1]. http://www.ushistory.org...[2]http://www.religioustolerance.org...[3]http://www.macquirelatory.com...[4]http://www.opm.gov...[5]http://schools.nyc.gov...","The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend tax... Western countries are Christian societies, shaped over centuries by the Church. Some, such as the UK, still have an official state church and many others (e.g. Germany, France) support churches with money in some ways. In all Christmas Day is a public holiday. Even in the USA many people would argue that the courts have shut religion out of public life in a way that the Founding Fathers never intended. Such Christian countries should not turn their back upon their heritage and the faith background of the large majority of their citizens. This means Christmas (and other Christian festivals, such as Easter) should continue to be marked officially with public displays. The state can also mark other faith holidays in some way, but it is right that Christmas gets most official attention.","If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well \"The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice.\" While the 14th amendment grants equal practice to corporations as person hood, no entity may act on the behalf of the government in regards to religious practice. Contrary to your argument, the removal of religious affiliation is in no way the same as denying people the opportunity to practice. That was the intent of the establishment clause. While government agencies are prohibited from creating religions, practices, or affiliations they are also prohibited from siding with any religion or the idea of religion over non-religion. The fact that Christmas was established long before the creation of the United States confirms that it was not named by the government. Though it also defines that the United States officially named the holiday defined by government standards after Christmas. Christmas has been defined in R1 as having a predetermined religious connotation. \"Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines.\" As roughly 70 percent of the United States reports as Christian, it would be illogical to assume that the significance of their most revered holiday is obsolete. \"So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision\"The decision of the Supreme Court was made in light of current precedence, not necessarily the common logic and upholding of establishment. As the decision was made in 1999, there is reason to believe that the logic and circumstances have changed in light of the last 16 years of disassociation between religion and government. In the meantime, the Pledge of Allegiance, Swearing in Under God, and even the term IN GOD WE TRUST, printed on our money has come into question.http://blog.constitutioncenter.org... Endorsement test The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. From <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...; Unless religious affiliation creates unreasonable individuals, it would be safe to assume that 70 percent of the American people would reasonably observe that the government creating a holiday named after their most sacred holiday is an endorsement of a version of their religion, or, if it is a combination of religions, it is still a promotionn of religion over non-religion.","Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college. Regarding United States presidential elections, the electoral college should be replaced by a country-wide popular vote because the electoral college is both unfair and un-American. The United States is a country grounded on equal rights, as shown by the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. The electoral college gives US citizens of heavily populated states more voting power than US citizens of lightly populated states, and therefore Americans are not equal in this manner. It is also an unfair way of determining US presidency because there have been elections that have gone out of favor of the popular vote, and therefore goes against the interests of most American citizens. With a simple country-wide popular vote, all citizens of the United States would bear equal voting rights as well as a fair election.","The electoral college should be abolished First of all, yes you are right about the Wikipedia thing, but if you clicked on the link you would have found that I used it as a source for population totals in New Hampshire and California. Okay, you start by suggesting that the electoral college was more legitimate back in the 17, and 1800's based off of what? I don't mean to discredit your argument but you have no evidence to back up the claim that \"It was more useful and helpful to preserve democracy and be fair.\" Second, Statistically, Donald Trump won the majority vote, by county. One thing you did not specify, was what exactly the majority was, which I assume is the general population. If you look at the 2016 electoral map by county you will see that the majority of Midwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern state counties are red. This is because the Republican Party choose to target the less populated areas in those regions, while the Democratic Party choose to target the densely populated areas of the Westcoast and Eastcoast, with the occasional county out west. By that record, Donald Trump appealed to the rural population over the urban population. In order to gain the necessary electoral votes, Donald Trump would have to gain a huge following in less populated states. With that combined, he won the majority vote by county. County goes to the state level, and if the state voted 2/3 in favor of one party, it's total electoral votes would go to that party. Now answer me this. Why should the Electoral college be abolished? You've thrown around vague statements with little to no evidence or support from your own writing to back your claim up. Such as \"How is this fair or logical at all?\" and \" much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair.\" How? you need to elaborate on your statements.","Should we change the electoral college from Population to number of actual voters I'd like to challenge the idea that people are affected by Political actions. To the perspective of the average non-voter, the two main reasons why they do not vote are either because they are too busy or they just aren't interested. (. https://www.washingtonpost.com...) If they aren't interested then chances are that politics doesn't affect their daily lives. Voting is a right in the United States and when you say you do not want to vote that is your decision but that means you don't want to be counted in Politics either because you think Politics are boring or you're too busy to either get an absentee ballot or take the time to go to the nearest voting booth and do it. Another reason why a lot of Americans do not vote is because they believe their vote is way too minuscule to even count. (. http://www.livescience.com...) In the end though if we do make the electoral college based on voters then they will have a lot more of a reason to vote. Another thing I would like to point out is that, this is a bipartisan idea. States like Oregon,Maine and Minnesota can have their voices heard much louder. (. http://www.csmonitor.com...) The best reason why people in these states vote is because they know that it really does matter, these people all have a busy 9-5 pm schedule as well and they still come out to vote. Clearly they need their voices heard a lot more then these large states like California or Texas who clearly don't really care. These small states are taking time to addressing what is really a problem in their communities and looking to fix the issue besides sitting around and smoking dope all day or shooting pheasants. If you take the time to actually sit down and listen to debates and vote with a well informed opinion, shouldn't you be allowed to express it more then someone who really doesn't care. It's a lot like the idea of working, shouldn't someone who is working be looked at more favorably then someone who is on Facebook while at their job all day? (. http://www.forbes.com...) This is actually true and I would like to make my point by comparing apathetic non voters to people who don't really do their job. When it comes to efficiency in a company the one universal thing that drives employers crazy is the fact people are too bored so they sit around and surf on Facebook or look on Amazon for random stuff. In my field of work as an Electrician, I have taken many OSHA who have said that being distracted on Facebook on the Job can not only cause an explosion in a refinery but also can ban you from ever being in the Union again. Not only that but good luck ever getting a job in the electrical field ever again. My point is this, if we wish to be a more efficient nation that understands the problems of people who care then we should be addressing people's votes a lot more seriously. Let's stop saying they are too minuscule to ever count and actually show that their votes do count by changing the size of the electoral college every election based on voter turn out. Not only that but then the local governments of these states will begin trying to get their people to vote more. They may put out incentives and create a much better atmosphere. So now my question to my opponent is this, how do you convince someone who is not interested in voting that politics affects their everyday lives?","Should we abolish the electoral college Yes because the electoral college is very broken. A person can win the election while only winning 21.8% of the popular vote.","Potato day should be a national holiday for all places I do not like potatoes, so using your logic there should be no Potato day. Your opinon is no better than mine, and I am fairly sure there are tons of people who dislike potatoes. I do not mean to sound pretentious, but using the logic of pro against them I technically win.","If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well If religious displays and practice are to be separated or secularized from the government, then the federal benefits of the same should be removed as well Apply for acceptance of debate will be done in comments. As this is my first debate, I am testing the waters. As Pro, I will be debating for the logic of removal of benefits of government enacted activities associated with separation of like religious practices, and supplementary absence of logic in non removal As Con, you will be debating for the logic of non removal of said benefits, as well as supplementary absence of logic in removal, or that federal benefits are nonexistent in relation to religious activities I appreciate any criticism that will aid me in future establishment of debates The first round will be definitions and acceptance. No new arguments in the final round No trolling Acceptance of the debate implies; That both Pro and Con agree that Separation of Church and State is recognized and enacted. That both Pro and Con agree to all definitions and rules expressed in Round 1 Clarification may be required, and annotated in comments to facilitate understanding or variation to stated definitions, if agreed upon by instigating party. That both parties may not assume favorable argument from the other, in that the views expressed may not be of the opinion of the debater, merely the argument, and any argument based in assumption or deduction of opposing parties' personal beliefs is invalid Any definitions stated outside of round 1 are open for debate Religious and non-religious are mutually exclusive Benefits referring to positive gain from a party are not negated by deficit or negativity towards the opposing party, wherein a viewpoint determines the classification of an item in question as benefit (i.e. worker vs employer. If it benefits one party involved, it is classified as a benefit) That both parties understand Boolean and logical arguments such as AND, OR, etc. Citations may be immersed in text, or listed following. Definitions;Christmas noun the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts. From <http://dictionary.reference.com...; Benefit noun : a good or helpful result or effect : money that is paid by a company (such as an insurance company) or by agovernment when someone dies, becomes sick, stops working, etc. : something extra (such as vacation time or health insurance) that is given by anemployer to workers in addition to their regular pay From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Thank you for your acceptance","The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote In the spirit of democracy, however, isn't the \"winner takes all system\" obsoleted? Doesn't it vilify the rights of minorities and favor the majority? But if the president campaigned in the big states, wouldn't the minorities of the small states migrate to the majority of the big states, therefore becoming the \"majority?\" So what? The constitution can be amended. Let's use Bush v. Gore 2000 as an example. Gore had 266 votes. Bush had 271. Without the inclusion of electorate votes, Gore would have won, and prevented the future collapse of the economy. Popular vote was won by Gore. Electoral Vote was won by Bush. Without the electoral college, Bush wouldn't have been elected; and, without the popular vote, Gore wouldn't of been elected. Therefore, the popular vote should not be vilified or considered inaccurate. Politicians vote on other politicians. State pretty much overrides what popularity dictates. Presidents are unfairly elected. So why do we consider ourselves a democracy if something like the Electoral College is permeated and not vilified?","Choose the Topic debate!!! Donald Trump Putting animals down that hurt people Reality Family shows are ridiculous Selfies are too pretentious Christmas is the best holiday ever TAKE YOUR PICK","I know what day of the week you will vote. Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!","The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America. My opponent is willing to go \"pro\" for any of the main issues listed on their website. I have chosen the Main Issue of Strengthening Democracy for this debate. More Specifically: Election Reform and the Natural Law Party proposal of Abolishing the Electoral College. The party proposes that people should be elected through direct popular vote. So I propose to my opponent a debate on the Abolishment of the Electoral College which is directly under their guidelines for a solution to Election Reform. If my opponent has any problem with this, my opponent can address this in the comment sections so Round 2 may begin the debate. Do Note: I propose that the debate be entirely on this topic as to not have a scattered debate due to the 8,000 character limit on this website.","The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia I do want say something key, I am not completely against the idea, But there is a trend of society overall. Traditions rarely last long, The original ones. July 4th is the day America became independent, And adopted the declaration of independence. Most people don't know that. Originally it was not a holiday, As is is now, Instead it is a celebration, Why, Just to celebrate. This does not apply to everyone, Just a lot of people in America. Also you said \"Australians only care if they get a day off. (most)\" so if that is why they are making the holiday, Then it should not be one, Also my opinion. My final idea is this. If people don't know about the event as much now, Someone has to announce it. Someone who is power and has influence, Most powerful people would not go through the trouble of announcing it, So it's likely it would not happen anyways. But still, I'm not completely against the holiday, I just think a holiday is a day of celebration then a day of mourning. Not completely against it though","Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day This is my first debate, so forgive me if I\"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don\"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don\"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don\"t follow politics so they don\"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn\"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won\"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?","U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. Hopefully he will return to the debate next round.","The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. I will be arguing that the Electoral College system in the United States should be abolished in favor of direct election. DefinitionsDirect election: a national popular vote that is won by getting a majority of votes, or a plurality that surpasses 40%. EC: Electoral CollegeGE: General election. Only refers to the presidential election. Don't do semantics, trolling, red herrings, or fallacies, be civil, and good luck!","Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else I realize it is called Christmas, but that doesn't make it Christian, as believe it or not Christmas started out as a pagen holiday. . http://www.simpletoremember.com..., I brought this up for the fact it is what you are suggesting that it should be Christmas not happy holidays. Doing so the U. S. A. would have to pass a law stating that, but that is Unconstitutional. This would be true but there is no Church of the Atheists. So forcing atheism on laws is actually a good thing, this was proved since many of our first presidents were Quakers (Society of friends. ) They pushed this policy and wanted everyone to get along. Under the theories of Quakerism everyone should get along with hugs and be happy.","Impromptu, with rebuttal Thanks to my opponent for a great debate and excellent arguments. I will keep my rebuttal simple. My opponent has failed to sufficiently affirm the topic, \"The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote.\" Not only does my opponent spend most of his time pointing out flaws in the Electoral College rather that explaining why the President should be elected by popular vote, the case he makes to affirm the topic is filled with errors. My opponent's argument begins by stating that, \"Under this system, every four years, every U.S. citizen would vote for who they wanted to be President.\" While this is not an error is logic, is it na�ve. The 2008 election had the highest voter turnout in years with 131032799 votes cast [1]. But this is still only about 63% of people eligible to vote [2]. What is to suggest that the popular vote system would bring in more voters than the electoral system? My opponent goes on to say that the winner would simply be the one with the most votes, subject to any recounts if the vote is close. But he later states that \"If the {2000} election had been decided by the popular vote, the controversy over the hanging chads, et al., wouldn't have mattered one jot.\" It is true that if that particular election had been under the popular vote system the recounts wouldn't have mattered or even had to have been performed. But again, what is to suggest that the popular vote system is better? My opponent has acknowledged that the popular vote would still be subject to recounts and therefore the same controversy that plagued the 2000 election could plague others. The next point made is that \"in the extremely unlikely event of a tie, a run-off election would be held, maybe a week or two later.\" The only purpose a run-off election would serve, however, is to eliminate third party candidates, which hardly influence the vote anyways. In the 2008 election, third party candidates garnered zero votes in the Electoral College and only 1.42% of the popular vote [3]. Also, a run-off election would be incredibly difficult to prepare for in one to two weeks and highly unproductive to prepare for in advance, not to mention costly. The 2008 presidential election cost $1.6 billon [4], twice as much as the 2004 presidential election. If my opponent is looking for a way to break a tie, the preferential system would be a better option than the popular vote because it would automatically break ties [5]. But this is irrelevant because once again my opponent has failed to prove why the popular vote system is better than the Electoral College. Lastly, my opponent states what would be eliminated through his plan, \"No electoral college, no deciding vote in the House of Representatives (like in 1824 [1]) - just one popular vote, which is the ultimate decider.\" First, \"no electoral college\" does not prove why the President should be elected by popular vote. Second, my opponent seems to take issue with the deciding vote in the House of Representatives. I will elaborate further on this in the next section on my rebuttal. To summarize, it is clear that I am taking issue with the fact that my opponent has failed to give evidence or even reason as to why, \"The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote.\" If I had to affirm this topic I probably would have included discussions of how the United States is founded on democracy and how democracy includes everyone and maybe why a popular vote is more cost effective. Instead, throughout his case, my opponent just points out flaws in the current system, the Electoral College. My opponent tries to address the issue by discussing why the popular vote is fair, fair being defined as \"free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice\" [6]. But all he does is give examples as to why the Electoral College is unfair. By trying to prove the Electoral College as unfair and expecting it to prove the popular vote system as fair is affirming the consequent, a serious logical error. Just because something is proven to be fair or unfair does not mean proof as to why another item is the opposite. The Electoral College is not the subject of the topic, nor is the topic asking for why it is worse. Because my opponent has simply failed to affirm, I urge a vote of negation. -Sources- [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com... [3] http://www.fec.gov... [4] http://blogs.wsj.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com...","Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college. Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that presidential elections should be decided by a popular vote of the entire United States.","The Electoral College Should be Abolished This debate will cover the discussion of whether or not the electoral college should or should not be abolished in favor of electing the President of the United States by a national popular vote.","Electoral College Should Be Abolished George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for democracy and for the authority of the Pres...","Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays Christmas is just around the corner and every year this question pops up...\"why do you, an atheist, celebrate Christmas? Aren't you being a hypocrite?\" So I am taking the Con and pose this debate to anyone who is willing to tell me why I should NOT observe Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, Rosh Hashanah, L. Ron Hubbard's birthday or Halloween. I will start by defining some of the terms that will be referenced: Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious: 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious Holiday: a day specified for religious observance http://dictionary.reference.com... Observe: 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way http://www.merriam-webster.com... Hypocrite: 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings http://www.merriam-webster.com... Christmas: 1 : a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Easter: a feast that commemorates Christ's resurrection and is observed with variations of date due to different calendars on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon http://www.merriam-webster.com... St. Patrick's Day: ...an annual feast day which celebrates Saint Patrick (circa AD 385–461), the most commonly recognised of the patron saints of Ireland, and is generally celebrated on 17th of March. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rosh Hashanah: ...a Jewish holiday commonly referred to as the \"Jewish New Year.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... L. Ron Hubbard's Birthday: The Church of Scientology recognizes March 13, the birthday of founder L. Ron Hubbard, as a religious holiday. http://altreligion.about.com... Halloween: is an annual holiday celebrated on October 31. It has roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Christian holy day of All Saints, but is today largely a secular celebration. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is not to be a venue for prostelising or for discussing the merits or demerits of any belief system. Keep it clean and on point.","The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro stated:\"On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so.\" Rebuttal: The Federal Government does not force it's employees to \"celebrate this religious festival\". The paid holiday period can be observed, but it can also be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion best suited to their ideology. In fact, not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays. The Department of Defense requires it's employees to submit a request for Holiday-down time. All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty. The military leave policy can be review here: Army --Army Regulation 600-8-10 - Leaves and Passes Air Force --Air Force Instruction 36-3003 - Military Leave Program Navy --MILPERSMAN 1050, Leave and Liberty Marine Corps --Marine Corps Order (MCO) P1050.3H - Regulations for Leave, Liberty, and Administrative Absence To satisfy the burden of this premise, Pro must show that observance of the Christmas ceremony is being forced upon federal employees, that mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee. ------------------ Pro stated:\"Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars.\" Rebuttal: The Unites States government's gross annual revenue from domestic product sales is estimated at 2.9 trillion dollars at the Federal level. [1] Approximately 19.5% of these sales occur over the Holiday season. [2] The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay. ------------------ Pro stated: \"No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar.\" Rebuttal: The Jewish Holiday of Purim is a big Israeli gift-exchanging holiday, but Hanukkah celebrates eight days of gift-giving in the North American tradition. The Muslims exchange gifts over two Eids in Ramadan as well. The Indian celebration of Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities. Hence: The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact, while wikipedia reports that 78% of Americans are Christians, a recent Gallup reported in the \"Statistical Illusion\" article showed that only 20% of Americans are truly Christians, as defined by their Church. [3] That means 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday. ------------------ Pro Claimed: The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate \"even for\" non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights, Putting up \"Christmas\" trees, Giving gifts, Sending greeting cards\" Rebuttal: I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation. Which federal law, passed in which year by what ruling body made the above list a federal \"designation\"? This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists. Federal observance of the Christmas Holiday was passed in 1870. It did not dictate how the holiday should be observed. Conclusion: It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance. Non-government entities are not required to shut down for Christmas. \"Constitutionally, there are no \"national holidays\" in the United States because Congress only has authority to create holidays for federal institutions (including federally owned properties) and employees, and for the District of Columbia.\" [4] Lastly, it should be noted that getting time off for the Christmas season does not mandate Church attendance or religious observance. You are free to spend Christmas catching up on sleep, getting drunk, or like most Americans, try to take advantage of spectacular discounts on retail prices. Going to Church is optional. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... [1] http://www.nrf.com... [2] http://www.christianitytoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]","The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia So i am not completely against making a holiday in australia, I just think there are better way to commemorate the fallen people. When people make a holiday out of something its normally a day of celebration. There are (in america) veterans day and other events so its not completely a bad idea. Instead of making a holiday, I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. What I find in holidays is people make a Mockery of the event, Even in america, So there are better ways to commemorate it my opinion. Also I give full respect to you and hopefully have a good debate.","should September 2 be a holiday 60 million lives lost and i wanna see what people would have to say because we all have family that some way helped in the war and these people should be remembered the troops and civilians. this should a holiday in every country from all the allies to all the axis.","The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote I would be happy to oblige. According to http://answers.yahoo.com..., the electoral college's original intent was \"The same purpose it serves today: to balance the political needs of the small states with the overwhelming power of the large states.\" However, I'd like to dispute the obsolescent mechanics of the system. According to http://news.yahoo.com..., \"The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness and become a potential tool in the war between and among political parties. There is no reason the president can't be elected in 2012, through popular vote, by the people. Not by a college of politicians, appointed by politicians, casting votes for districts drawn by politicians.\" With all this being said, I am taking Pro of this argument. I do not believe the electoral college is a modern process that should be taken during presidential elections. It was made years ago by our forefathers when doing so was essential; however, times have changed, and citizens are yearning for their own say in what goes on. After all, without the electoral college, Al Gore would've won, and let's face it: America would've been a heck of a lot better if Gore was elected.","All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Since no evidence or reason was given as to why \"talk like a pirate day\" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute.","Republicans vs. Democrats; Political FIGHT While I agree Holiday is a good song, I prefer good 'ol classic rock. Aerosmith and KISS in particular.","Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary. Ironically today is the day of the Iowa Caucus. GO MIKE HUCKABEE!!! SUPPORT THE HUCKABOOM www.mikehuckabee.com","Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote So this debate will be about the electoral college in the US.","The Electoral College should be abolished The united states was founded as a democracy, Not just a republic. \" This statement is inherently false and a common misconception (which I debunked previously). The founders intended for it to NOT be a democracy. It has some democratic features, But the point of it being a republic is that it is not a democracy nor was it founded to be one. \"The Electoral College system has gone beyond protecting the minority and has instead subverted the will of the majority on several occasions. I don't think candidates would necessarily campaign only in big cities, America is pretty evenly split between urban and rural\" The point IS to not have a simple majority mob-rule an entire country. It's not about urban and rural, The populations of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Georgia are about 50% of the entire country. Assuming that the % of registered voters is correlated to the % of the population (which it is), Then the ruling president would just pass laws and pander to these 8 states. That means the people living in the other 42 states are not represented in the government. Can you imagine that? The population of 42 states not represented. The electoral college guarantees the representation of all people in the government. \"but in America we have an unrepresented majority in all of the branches of government. It has grown beyond a simple check and it has subverted the will of the people. \" I think there is an unrepresented majority in the house of reps mainly due to gerrymandering, Which is a whole other issue. I think, Historically speaking, The president has been representative of the majority of the country. The electoral college is certainly not perfect. However, In the vast majority of elections the winner turns out to be the one with the most votes, And because of the electoral college that person had to campaign all over the US instead of just a couple states. It might have subverted the will of the people in some cases but that isn't congenitally bad for the country in the long run. I would say the electoral college is defiantly a better system than having the popular vote decide. It might need to be amended to fit the population a little but more, But the system itself, In my opinion, Is the greatest, Fairest one in the world. What other system would you recommend?","if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country. You responded,\"There is no American culture to corrupt or diffuse.\" Defining Culture , from the web page,\" Livescience\" \"American Culture: Traditions and Customs of the United States\" by Kim Ann Zimmermann, Live Science Contributor | January 15, 2015 Definding Culture: American culture encompasses the customs and traditions of the United States. \"Culture encompasses religion, food, what we wear, how we wear it, our language, marriage, music, what we believe is right or wrong, how we sit at the table, how we greet visitors, how we behave with loved ones, and a million other things,\" said Cristina De Rossi, an anthropologist at Barnet and Southgate College in London. So by this definition given above, America has a culture of its own. \"....The term Western culture often refers broadly to the cultures of the United States and Europe. ....\" \"American as apple pie\" has come to mean something that is authentically American\" American holidays.....\"celebrated only in the United States....\" \".....Many holidays are celebrated only in the United States...\" \".....Many holidays are celebrated only in the United States. Americans celebrate their independence from Britain on July 4. Memorial Day, celebrated on the last Monday in May, honors those who have died in military service. Labor Day, observed on the first Monday in September, celebrates country\"s workforce. Thanksgiving, another distinctive American holiday, falls on the fourth Thursday in November and dates back to colonial times to celebrate the harvest. Presidents\" Day, marking the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, is a federal holiday that occurs on the third Monday in February. The contributions of veterans are honored on Veterans\" Day, observed on Nov. 11. The contributions of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. are remembered on the third Monday in January.\" European culture is the base Culture of America, Immigrants have added their cultural influence to American culture but theirs is only an minuscule addition, not a elimination of America's own national culture, The Question that I asked was,\"..if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country, and so your response drifted away from the topic question although the flooding of foreign aliens could be considered one way to bring about the wrecking/ destruction, and dissolution of America as a nation.","Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)","State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government How fitting, Pro decided to forfeit on Election Day. And in saying that, I hope all US Debate.org folks go out and vote today. For voting is \"The Great Debate!\"","The Electoral College harms the democratic nature of the U.S. Government. I would also like to apologize for my delayed response. I would like to start by defining my argument with three contentions. First, the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. Second, the electoral college allows presidents to win without the popular vote. Finally, the electoral college puts too much importance in campaigning in swing states. Many voters don't like the electoral college. Gallup polls show that over the years the desire for a popular vote over the electoral college in America have gone up and up. Currently, 62% of Americans are in favor of the popular vote as opposed to using the electoral college in the presidential election, while only 35% of Americans prefer the electoral college (1). There are four primary instances in history where a candidate won the people's hearts but lost the election. \"Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000). \" (2). Four is four too many if you ask me. Being in a state that always votes against your party means that come election time your vote doesn't even matter, because the electoral vote will go to the other candidate either way. Finally, I contend that too much focus is put on swing states during presidential elections. This is of course because usually the way many state's electoral votes will go is obvious. Texas has voted republican consistently for years and California is an assured win for the democrats. This means that campaigning in these states is useless because the votes are guaranteed. It is for this reason that the campaign spending in Ohio was massive for both candidates, whilst spending in states like Alabama was almost non existent. My point is clear. The electoral college detracts from democracy. Vote Affirmative. I await my opponents response eagerly. 1. . http://www.gallup.com... 2. . http://www.infoplease.com...","the electoral college should be abolished 1) A republic is defined as, \"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.\" http://dictionary.reference.com... This is an actual definition instead of self defined interpretation of what a Republic is. \"Chosen directly or INDIRECTLY by them\"- the president is chosen indirectly, but is still determined by popular vote. 2) Yes it is possibly for the winner of the election to loose popular vote, but is any system perfect? No! So why is the electoral college better than popular vote? It protects individuals in small states, and protects the views of the minorities. New York City has a population of 8.3 million, while both nebraska and iowa have a combined population of under 5 million. Iowa and Nebraska are two states known for farming, and the midwest is the \"bread basket of the United States, and makes a large portion of the worlds food. If we have a popular vote only system farmers would not have a strong voice in the political spectrum. WHen one city is larger than many states combined, then many people will have worthless votes. Nobody will campaign in the midwest but only in large cities around the country. This is only one example of people loosing their voices. There are also ranches, and others who will loose their voices. 3) My opponent says that voters are discouraged from voting because he says their votes don't matter, but they actually do. Legal Requirements or Pledges Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ALABAMA \" Party Pledge / State Law \" \" 17-19-2 ALASKA \" Party Pledge / State Law \" \" 15.30.040; 15.30.070 CALIFORNIA \" State Law \" \" 6906 COLORADO \" State Law \" \" 1-4-304 CONNECTICUT \" State Law \" \" 9-175 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA \" DC Pledge / DC Law \" \" 1-1312(g) FLORIDA \" Party Pledge / State Law \" \" 103.021(1) HAWAII \" State Law \" \"\" 14-26 to 14-28 MAINE \" State Law \" \" 805 MARYLAND \" State Law \" \" 20-4 MASSACHUSETTS \" Party Pledge / State Law \" Ch. 53, \" 8, Supp. MICHIGAN \" State Law \" \"168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) MISSISSIPPI \" Party Pledge / State Law \" \"23-15-785(3) MONTANA \" State Law \" \" 13-25-104 NEBRASKA \" State Law \" \" 32-714 NEVADA \" State Law \" \" 298.050 NEW MEXICO \" State Law \" \" 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.) NORTH CAROLINA \" State Law \" \" 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.) OHIO \" State Law \" \" 3505.40 OKLAHOMA \" State Pledge / State Law \" 26, \"\" 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.) OREGON \" State Pledge / State Law \" \" 248.355 SOUTH CAROLINA \" State Pledge / State Law \" \" 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.) VERMONT \" State Law \" title 17, \" 2732 * VIRGINIA \" State Law \" \" 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory \" \"Shall be expected\" to vote for nominees.) WASHINGTON \" Party Pledge / State Law \" \"\" 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.) WISCONSIN \" State Law \" \" 7.75 WYOMING \" State Law \" \"\" 22-19-106; 22-19-108 No Legal Requirement Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ARIZONA ARKANSAS DELAWARE GEORGIA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MINNESOTA MISSOURI NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW YORK NORTH DAKOTA PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH WEST VIRGINIA Over half the states have laws requiring electors to vote with the popular vote of the state. Yes some states don't, but electors vote with the popular vote more than 99% of the time. It is an extremely rare occurrence that an elector would vote against popular vote, and an elector voting against popular vote is not present in 20th century politics. Popular vote would cause less people to turn out to vote, when a city is bigger than your entire state your vote has no effect. 4) Also, America is a two party system and even if we have popular vote a third party candidate will not win an election. In 1976 North Carolina was a blue state, popular vote and electoral college voted democrat. North Carolina then became a consistent Republican state until 2008. In 2008 North Carolina became a \"blue state\" once again. This shows that entrenched states will not always vote the same way as my opponent has tried to show. In 1992 Bill Clinton won 2,281,815 votes while the Republican candidate, George Bush, won 2,496,071 million votes. This is only about 200,000 vote difference. This shows that the right candidate can make a difference in \"entrenched\" states, as my opponent states. In 2004 George W. Bush won 44% of the popular vote in california. Both Texas and California are the states most likely to continue to vote along party lines, but as shown they can be very close states in some elections.","The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas NO public holiday, no public funds for Christmas trees, no official acknowledgement of the day.Actually, I want to go further and say that here, in the southern hemisphere, Christmas should be actively discouraged. It's summer! We should just be lazing around with cocktails! Instead, I came back into the city today and the traffic is horrible and everyone looks stressed. However, since this site is in the northern hemisphere, I'll just go with the resolution as it is.","We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Voters, I know this has not been much of a debate. In fact, it wasn't a debate at all. I just want to state my stance to the voters to garner their opinions. I believe that Columbus Day is a symbolic holiday in which we celebrate the peak of the renaissance, and the improvements of technology that came along with it - medicine, government, etc. I also believe that Columbus Day is an important part of our past - and shouldn't be eradicated from calendars. Famous songs, poems, and other forms of media were created to celebrate Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example. I would also like to state that my opponent's argument is inconsistent. If Columbus Day should not be celebrated because of the treatment of the Natives, should we rename cities like Columbus? Should we dismantle statutes of Columbus?No. Although Columbus did not discovered America, he was the leader of the voyage that put it into the limelight in Europe. He might not have spotted it first - but I believe that we need to remember his braveness, his stamina, his wanting to continue on. If he had been to afraid to cross the Atlantic, America would be much different. No one can deny this; Columbus made a dent in history, and we should remember this by celebrating Columbus Day. Voters, please vote for who's argument is more logical, who had better conduct. I participated in every round. My opponent forfeited two of the three rounds. I provided reasons for why I believe we need to celebrate Columbus Day. My opponent provided very little fact and cited few to no resources. Voters, vote for who won.","Christmas should be cancelled Thanks for your post, and allow me to wish you seasons greetings. This is my very first debate, so I apologize in advance for any procedural errors. From your opening remarks, I am not sure whether you are advocating for the removal of Christmas Day as a public holiday, or arguing for the complete ban of Christmas celebration altogether (or both). My confusion stems from your point # 3 regarding the stress caused by shopping for Christmas, advertising, etc. I do not see what effecting removing Christmas as a public holiday would have on shopping stress or advertising. Your clarification here would be appreciated. That said, and to be on the safe side, I will argue against canceling Christmas altogether, and hopefully address the public holiday issue in the process. I will first make my case for not canceling Christmas, and then attempt to rebut your arguments. C1-It is not necessarily religious. It is true that the historical roots of Christmas stem from the religious tradition of celebrating the birth of Christ, but if one looks back at the tradition even farther, the pre-Christian origins of the winter celebration are clear. [1] Over time, Christmas has certainly become increasingly secularized. It has evolved into more of a cultural event focused on joy and giving, rather than a strict religious observance. This is supported by the US Courts when addressing suits brought on by those seeking to end Christmas as a public holiday due to the establishment clause of the US Constitution. The courts ruled that Christmas, \"has a valid secular purpose, it does not have the effect of endorsing religion in general or Christianity in particular, and it does not impermissibly cause excessive entanglement between church and state.\" [2] Christmas is at a point now where it can be comfortably celebrated by Christians and non-Christians alike. I have many non-Christian friends who vigorously engage in Christmas celebrations. Why even the renown atheist Richard Dawkins celebrates the holiday. [3] C2-Charitable giving increases during the holidays Surveys show that charitable giving increases during the holiday season. I acknowledge that the reason for the increase might be due to many factors not necessarily associated with Christmas (last minute donations for tax purposes, needs of the poor due to cold weather, etc), but it is clear that a tradition of giving during Christmas has a significant impact in increased donations. [4] C3-Economic Benefits My arguments for the economic benefit of Christmas will be addressed as part of my rebuttal. C4-It's just plain fun People derive great joy from the traditions associated with Christmas. Here are just a few examples: • The eager anticipation of the holiday • Family and friends coming together • Great food (and drink for that matter – I love eggnog) • Singing Christmas carols • Exchanging gifts • Trimming the tree • Mistletoe • Sharing the joys of laughter and good cheer And if you are really against the whole Christmas celebration, the good news is that participation is optional. Rebuttal \"1 – The vast majority of people in the West do not practice Christianity: the United States has the highest number of churchgoers for a developed nation at 25%, whereas in Northern European countries church attendance ranges between 3-12 %. Why then is a celebration associated with a religious minority foisted upon the entire nation?\" Church Attendance is not a pre-requisite of Christianity. A person is a Christian if they consider themselves a follower of Christ. How they chose to manifest that personal designation is, well, personal. The bottom line is that Christians are not a minority in the US or UK. 76% of the US population [5] and 72% in the UK [6] consider themselves Christian. \"2 – As businesses shut down for Christmas Day the lost productivity costs industry trillions of dollars: the GDP of the European Union and the United States alone is USD30,533,747 million which means that Christmas costs US and EU firms $83.65 trillion dollars every year.\" It is unreasonable to assume that GDP in the US and the European Union comes to a complete stand still on Christmas day. I can tell you from personal experience that I've unfortunately had to work on Christmas Day several times. The truth is that Christmas has a huge beneficial impact to the economy as Kathleen Antriim's column outlines [7]. If we were to end Christmas, consider all of the retail, manufacturing and ancillary business that would be effected. Furthermore, if you are seriously complaining about the net GDP loss for declaring a public holiday, should we not also get rid of New Year's Day as well? \"3 – Shopping for Christmas presents is not only enormously stressful but parents are encouraged by advertisers and through peer pressure to spend more than they can afford on gifts for their children: 52% of families with low and middle incomes turn to high interest debt to cover the cost of Christmas; money that would be better spent on their children's health and education\" You've obviously never met my wife, as she actually considers Christmas shopping a relaxing experience. It sounds like your gripe is with stress, advertising, peer pressure and people who spend irresponsibly. The mere fact that Christmas is involved does not warrant its removal. People get fat from eating too much food, but food is not the problem, people's behavior is the problem. Cancelling Christmas is not the solution. People taking personal responsibility is. I can absolutely guarantee you that if we end Christmas, people will still get stressed, people will still experience peer pressure, people will still spend irresponsibly, and advertisers will still advertise. It is unfortunate, but true. Conclusion Christmas is enjoyed by a vast majority of people, Christian and non-Christian alike. We should embrace it as a wonderful time of year. Let the kids open their presents on Christmas Morning, and let Mom & Dad have a day off so they can join their kids in the celebration. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.becketfund.org... [3] http://writerchick99.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.thestreet.com... [5] http://religions.pewforum.org... [6] http://www.communities.gov.uk... [7] http://dev.www.washingtonexaminer.com...","The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro stated: “By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true.” Rebuttal: Naturally. The debate is not concerned with if Christmas has federal recognition. I already stated that the Holiday received federal recognition in 1870. My opponent’s burden is to show why this recognition is unfair, unconstitutional or otherwise undesirable. This is an empty objection. --------------------- Pro stated: “It’s bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow.” Rebuttal: Again, my opponent failed to argue how a “mandatory” paid holiday is unfavorable. Stating that the employee is “forced” to observe the day would insinuate that the employee is forced to pray, worship or otherwise partake in the ritual. Instead, the employee is given a fully compensated period of leave which can be spent in manner desirable to the employee. My opponent has failed to show a victim group. --------------------- Pro remarked: I suppose they (the Federal Government) keep the essential services running. I don’t really see how that affects the argument, though. Rebuttal: The argument is affected by the mere fact that federal observance is a luxury, not a duty. A vast congress of uniformed service members are forced to forego observance in lieu of mandatory hazardous duty in foreign, hostile conditions. This premise nullifies the entire concept of “forced” observance. With many Federal agencies, we actually see forced non-observance. As the Air Force core value states:” Service before self.” Pro flagrantly dropped this argument. --------------------- Pro remarked: You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen’s feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. Rebuttal: My opponent clearly missed the premise. As I stated in round 2, the federal recognition of Christmas passed in 1870 by full recognition of both Houses. The representatives of the American Public introduced the bill and so it’s only logical that an equal measure is required to repeal the bill. By ignoring public opinion my opponent has conceded an incredible pillar to his premise, which is the Law that recognized Christmas to begin with. This is the second point my opponent has flagrantly dropped. --------------------- Pro wasted an incredible amount of space answering questions that weren’t asked. These, above any other arguments, are the most ridiculous arguments my opponent has furnished. It’s not a difficult task to debate someone when you grant yourself the luxury of putting words in their mouth. Highly condescending. Rebuttal: The purpose of the revenue snapshot was to illuminate the vast importance that Christmas has to our economy. By granting Federal employees a paid winter vacation, it encourages the employee to participate in the holiday economy. In essence, the paid holiday leave is most certainly being filtered back into the economy, stimulating the incredible revenue growth experienced only during this season. The incredible profits enjoyed by the Federal Government also indicate that public support for the festivity is pervasive, making an appeal to authority or an appeal to ethics irrelevant. As I’ve stated before, my opponent has failed to establish a victim group. It would have been a good start for him to show another religion campaigning for federal recognition. Perhaps he could have cited a secular appeal to the courts to remove the Holiday. Alas, my opponent made no such arguments at all. --------------------- Pro stated: So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can’t Christmas be like that too? Rebuttal: Laws don’t change because you really, really want them to. Christmas probably “could” be like that too, but you must show why it should be like that too. --------------------- Pro said: Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. Rebuttal: Amazing objection. Perhaps my opponent doesn’t realize that Winter Solstice is Pagan and not a secular observance? It dates back to the Norse empire and Rome. [1] Additionally, as I’ve already stated, Christmas observance is relative. Christians observe it religiously, the secularist observes it culturally. My opponent has not only dropped this point, he has also failed to show that Federal observance is religious in nature. This is the third premise dropped by my opponent. ------------------ Pro cited the following source: “Christmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans.” http://www.usa.gov...... Rebuttal: That is a definition from a public relations website, it’s not a law. Additionally, the source directly concedes that Christmas observance is not necessarily Christian. If my opponent would like to see what a legal guideline is, let me cite the ruling of Ganulin vs. The United States (1999). As per the judge: “Courts have repeatedly recognized that the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized. ...By giving federal employees a paid vacation day on Christmas, the government is doing no more than recognizing the cultural significance of the holiday.” [2] Argument extended. ------------------ Conclusion: Pro built a weak and careless resolution in his first round. Without rhyme or reason, he stated simply that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.” As we can see from the debate, Pro immediately dropped the first two burdens. This is most likely because he realized too late that Federal Observances are not public. As I stated (and my opponent dropped this argument also), there is a difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday. Instead, my opponent focused on the third portion of his burden ONLY. Remarkably, he never established a single argument for his burden. Rather, he spent the entirety of his debate trying to defend against my attacks on his burden. My opponent has clearly failed to satisfy the burden he laid out in round one. Furthermore, he has failed to adequately defend against my attacks. This debate was very on-sided but I would like to thank my opponent regardless. I found the topic worthwhile and this debate helped me establish an educated opinion on the issue. I’d like to thank the voter for reading the arguments and (without any pun intended) I’d like to wish everyone a peaceful and joyful holiday season. Vote Con. http://www.bbc.co.uk... [1] http://atheism.about.com... [2]","Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino \"Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. \" Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.","Presidential Election 2016 Who do you think is going to win on Election Day?","Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else Religion aspectIn America today there is an increasing number of Atheists and one would be insulting another if you say the phrase Merry Christmas, because you could offend Jews, Muslims, and Atheists. Jews would prefer that Hanukkah should a national holiday, because they believe that Jesus was not our savior and that he was more of a prophet. Muslims are against almost everything that is Christian and Christmas would be one of them. Atheists are in this allusion that God doesn't exists so you would be appeasing one person and offending another.","Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.","That Age of Empires is superior to Empire Earth I guess he needs the extra time. Did I mention that today is actually international vote-Pro day? No? . ..","should September 2 be a holiday I accept. I will be arguing that September 2 (end of World War II) should not be a holiday. What PRO fails to understand is that we already have a holiday in honor of anybody who served in wars and all the civilian casualties --it takes place on November 11 and its called Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day. Estimates about how many people that have died from war range from 150 000 000-1 000 000 000 people [1]. Let's suppose that only 150 million people died in wars. PRO admits that 60 million people died in World War II, so all of the deaths in every other wars amount to 90 million. Do you see what I'm getting at?If only 150 million people died in every war ever, making a special holiday for those who served specifically in World War II would be extremely unfair to people who served in other wars, as they aren't getting as much respect and credit for their efforts. Not only that, but 60 million people are getting honored rather than 90 million. Singling out specifically 60 million out of 150 million is unfair to the other soldiers/civilians and ludicrous, especially since it is more probable that a higher number of casualties were a result from wars.Yes, World War II was a tragedy, but PRO's claim that specifically those who were involved in that specific war rather than every person involved in every war should somehow receive more credit, respect and honor than others who were involved in every other war is ridiculous, not to mention we already honor everybody who served and/or died in wars.Therefore, vote CON.Ciatations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...","You choose the topic International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.","Scream at the Sky day is useless I agree that its a stress reliever for some people. However, the protest is useless when it comes to changing the voting system. Your right that only a few people have won even though they did not win popular vote. However, this just goes to show that most of the time, the electoral college works with the people. Continuing, 46.4% voters voted for Trump, while 48.5% voted for Clinton. (popular vote) The difference was 2 percent. Although that's still a large sum of people, it was only two percent when added up together. Also, a vast majority of Clinton's votes came from large Democratic states, like California. While Trump won people across the country, Clinton won people in large states. Having places like California and NY basically control who gets elected is not in the peoples best interest. The electoral college is their to make sure all states get what they want. And even though you are right about some protests making a difference, this one likely will not. Screaming at the sky does not offer solutions to the \"problem\". It does not address anything at all really. All it is is one big public tantrum. A thousand people is not a big number when their are millions of people in America. I'm betting that the vast majority of people in the USA can handle frustration better than screaming. http://www.cnn.com...","Abolish all holidays I am new to this so I posted my argument in the comment section.... Ok. For one I do believe everyone who works for a living should have the means to have plenty of time off work. Here in the U.S. we have many set holidays where everybody does there thing on the same weekend or day which causes mass congestion and takes from the quality of enjoying time off . My second thought is that are largest holidays are based on falsehoods and make-believe and the truth and facts of history will never be accepted because of it. There is know known birthdate for Jesus and the winter holiday was based on paganism and earthy things. There was no cozy get together between native A americans and Pilgrims, the west was one through brutal massacres and genocide and so on and so forth. My third thought amount many is that I believe it is healthier to spread it evenly and make everyday important fun and meaningful and there are studies that show that people are not any happier after holidays and are more likely to be less happy .","More spending in elections undermines public confidence \"A Bad Day for Democracy\". The Christian Science Monitor. January 22, 2010: \"this potential spending will create even greater fear of political reprisal for unpopular votes, expand conflicts of interest, and further undermine the public’s confidence in government’s ability to act in the public interest.\"","The electoral college should be abolished Ok I'm going to elaborate now. I admit I have fallen short on that. The purpose of establishing the electoral college was because the Founders were scared of a single man (or woman) influencing public opinion as a whole, being elected president, and becoming a dictator. They feared that a political agenda could easily overcome more than 50% of the population, so they created the electoral college to give everyone a fair and equal representation in the election Source: https://www.factcheck.org... I understand how Donald Trump. I understand the electoral college. But what I'm saying is the winner of the popular vote on the national level (Hillary Clinton) should have won the presidency. By the way, I said she won the \"popular vote\" in my previous argument. I think it's pretty obvious what that means. It means that she won the majority vote on the national level. Now I will explain in simpler terms why the electoral college should be abolished. Imagine that you and 9 of your friends (making 10 people) are debating over which restaurant to go to. The whole group agrees that everyone will vote and everyone will have to go to the restaurant with the most votes. Everyone votes, and out of the 10 people there, Taco Bell gets 7 votes. But you all go to McDonalds anyway, even though it only got 2 votes. The group, as a whole or as a majority, wanted to go to Taco Bell, but you ended up with McDonalds. Now let's expand this analogy by replacing 10 people with 30 million and replacing the choice of restaurant with the choice of our president in 2017. 48.2% of American voters chose Clinton. 46.1% of Americans chose Trump. Clinton won the popular vote on the national level. And no, there was not any voter fraud. Trump said over and over again that there was voter fraud but he did not present any kind of proof. Source: http://www.cnn.com... The contender has not presented any information that supports the idea of the electoral college being fair.","should September 2 be a holiday well you will never find another war like this. i have m made my point so let the voting win","Christmas is the most important Christian holiday. Round 1 was supposed to be for acceptance. And because you've agreed to debate the pro side of the argument, you're supposed to be debating FOR Christmas, not New Year's! So, for your past arguments, you've actually been helping me instead of yourself . Happy New Year's everyone!","The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round \"Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else.\" Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated \"Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters.\" But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement \"Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!\" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.","Resolved : The Electoral College should be Removed My opponent's first new objection is that campaign strategy would be different under direct election. I have no problem with this: the new campaign strategy would target voters more efficiently and more thoroughly. Under the current presidential election procedure, a disproportionate amount of money [1] and visitations [2] is spent on \"swing states,\" when that money should focus on changing votes everywhere. My opponent also tries to defend the electoral college by arguing that the power of the president comes from the states. This contradicts the Declaration of Independence, which originates political power from those it governs. States have no power to coerce their political minorities into counting towards the candidate they didn't choose. My opponent's last new appeal quotes Wikipedia which argues that the Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to minorities to squeak out a majority. This would happen under direct election as well, except at a national, rather than state-specific, scope, and to a larger degree, because the minority would count: not only if added it passed the fifty-percent margin, but all of the time. In the last roud, my opponent did not object to the following arguments: The Winner-Take-All provision misconstrues the votes of the minorities of every state. The Electoral College distorts the vote of individuals based on their location. The Electoral College harms third parties. It isn't enough that the Electoral College system functions. Dictatorships function. Military fascist regimes function. A functioning government that violates its citizens should be corrected. The Electoral College violates the democratic liberties of the citizenry. Therefore, it should be removed. The resolution is negated. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.politico.com... [2] . http://www.fairvote.org...","keep Christ in christmas Since my opponent failed to makes any arguments, I extend all previous arguments made and will respond to a comment below. \"Our Government does NOT \"represent one that has no religious involvement\". People often misinterpret the establishment clause to mean \"Separation of Church and State\", that's not what it does. It simply prevents the Government from mandating a state sponsored religion. It does not prevent the Government from recognizing religion and it's importance to our society, however. In short, it is to protect religion from the Government, not the other way around. And our Government most certainly does celebrate Christmas. Did you receive mail on Dec. 25th? Did public school children have to attend classes that day? No. Why? Because the religious tradition of Christmas is recognized by the Government as a federal holiday.\" If the Government is supposed to protect religion, how can it sponsor one certain religion? I have told you the XMAS is a commercial holiday to many, and by Christianizing it, the government will be endorsing a religion. And if it only endorses one religion, it is not protecting the other religions. The Govt. might celebrate a commercial version of XMAS. That's fine. Most people do. It's when the Govt. hangs crosses, manger scenes, and holds prayer that it becomes a religious holiday. This is what would happen if we put Chrsit back into Christmas. We know the Govt. does not do this. Why? Prayer is still banned in schools, nativity scenes are still banned from public property, and crosses are not hanging on govt. buildings.","Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the \"beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe\"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++\"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented\"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++\"His \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey\"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse \"from sea to shining sea\" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates \"genocide and imperialism.\"++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...","The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas The U.S. government favors Christianity over all other religions by recognizing Christmas, a Christian festival, and by mandating a federal holiday on Christmas Day. It does not recognize any other religious holiday in the same way. By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true. Con said: “The Federal Government does not force it's [sic] employees to \"celebrate this religious festival\". The paid holiday period can…be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion.” Thank goodness! Imagine a state of affairs where citizens were actually driven into churches and forced to pray! You’re right, Heineken. That would be much, much worse. It’s bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow. Con said: “not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays… All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty.” I’m sure you’re right, Heineken, that they don’t stand down the entire military for Christmas, or indeed for any federal holiday. I suppose they keep the essential services running. I don’t really see how that affects the argument, though. Con said: “Pro must show that…mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee.” You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen’s feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. I disagree entirely, and for many reasons that are well outside the scope of this debate. I will only say here that this debate is not about people’s emotions. It is about whether the US government should stop imposing religious observance onto its citizens in the form of the Christmas Day holiday. And yes, it should stop. ------------------ Con said: “The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in [sic] 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay.” This is my favorite of all your arguments, because of the large sums of money involved and because of its ambiguity. What point are you trying to make here? If only there were an extra round, I could ask. As it is, I will take a few guesses at what your argument might be, and rebut them in turn. 1. Christmas day pays for itself. Non-Christians don’t have to subsidize it. Actually, according to your own sources, “holiday sales” mean all sales in November and December and “Holidays during this period include Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa.” http://www.nrf.com...... In fact, there is no information here about how much money in taxes Christmas contributes specifically. In any case, the government encourages non-Christians to give gifts, send cards and put up Christmas trees. To contribute taxes, in other words. So whether it’s though sales or income tax, non-Christians are subsidizing this religious festival. 2. We’re so gloriously rich here in America, what difference does half a billion dollars make? Half a billion dollars is still a substantial amount of money. And it’s the principle of the thing. Citizens can’t choose whether or not to subsidize Christmas Day. The government makes them. 3. Christmas Day makes money for the government. Therefore, the government is right to encourage it. As you convincingly argued elsewhere, Christians aren’t alone in having gift-giving festivals. The government doesn’t need to mandate a federal holiday to rake in the benefits of religion. In any case, this is a distressingly cynical line to take. Surely religious freedom and equality are worth more than a seasonal rise in retail sales? ------------------ Con said: “The Jewish Holiday of Purim…Hanukkah…Eids…Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities.” So true. So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can’t Christmas be like that too? Con said: “The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact… 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday.” I’m sure you’re right, Heineken. Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. ------------------ Con said: “ I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation…This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists.” I’m sorry. I did put the US government link in, but you had to find it on the list of links at the bottom, click on it, then scroll down to find the right bit. I should have just put in the quote directly. Here it is. “Christmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans.” http://www.usa.gov... What’s a “straw man argument”? It sounds bad, almost as if you’re accusing me of making things up. But I’ve included sources all along. Con said: “It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance.” Ah. So that’s the difference between a “national holiday” and a “federal holiday”. Thanks. That’s really interesting. Conclusion There are eleven federal holidays in the US. Only one of these, Christmas Day, is a religious festival. The government has no business showing such respect and preference to Christianity. The US prides itself on being a country of religious freedom. Federal holidays, which are compulsory holidays for all federal employees (in non-essential services), and which are subsidized by US tax-payers, should be secular and inclusive. Christmas Day should be celebrated by Christians in a private manner, just as people of other beliefs celebrate their own festivals.","Republicans vs. Democrats; Political FIGHT Holiday by green day is a good song...","If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well org. The First Amendment was established to not only protect an individual's right to practice the religion of their choice, but to also protect that individual from [the religions] of others. It also sought to establish a boundary as to where no religions could be created by, and for, our government. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was designed to extend the understanding and capability of that protection by limiting the ability of the government to not only create religion, but promote one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. \"The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. \" From <. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...; \"In Lynch v. Donnelly, the U. S. Supreme Court considered whether the inclusion of a crèche in a municipality's Christmas display was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case involved the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which owned a crèche and included it as part of an overall, elaborate Christmas display on the grounds of a park owned by a non-profit. The city's display included a depiction of Santa, reindeer, a Christmas tree, carolers, cut out figurines, and candy-stripes poles, in addition to the nativity scene. \" From <. http://ffrf.org...; The Court deemed the crèche, or manger was unconstitutional as it favored Christianity over other religions in a display. As a precedent to my arguments, The application of separation and establishment had to be made. This example of separation depicts a certain amount of irony, as the holiday season (aside from the meaning of the actual word holiday) itself promotes religion, whether a particular religion, or religion itself. According to 5 U. S. Code § 6103 - Holidays From <. https://www.law.cornell.edu...; \"The following are legal public holidays: New Year’s Day, January 1. Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. , the third Monday in January. Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February. Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. Independence Day, July 4. Labor Day, the first Monday in September. Columbus Day, the second Monday in October. Veterans Day, November 11. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November. Christmas Day, December 25. \" These dates and terms were confirmed at <. http://www.archives.gov...> . \"Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is Federal policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law. \" From <. http://www.archives.gov...; The creation of these dates and names, especially Christmas Day, into law, is a direct violation of the establishment clause. Partially in the term holiday, originally crafted from the word holy, and day Though it has been accepted later in history to also mean a vacation or celebration unrelated to religion, it shares meaning with religious connotation, not excluding it. Wholly, however, in the Definition of Christmas, previously established as a Christian holiday. From <. http://dictionary.reference.com...; As the correlation of legal precedence and religious connotation associated with the aforementioned dates has been established, it is reasonable to conclude that the policy regarding endorsement of religious activities is not extended to the benefits encouraged by the government in the form of the new definition of holiday.","U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. https://quizlet.com... . http://www.usnews.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.","If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well org. As Stated in round 1, the definitions of Christmas and benefit were established. It was established in round 2 that the government of the United States has established holidays, with legally confirmed named and regards. Round 3 affirmed that the First Amendment established freedoms from a government ability to promote a religious attribute over non religion. The logical conclusion to the dictation of these events is that the government endorses a holiday (benefit) in the name of Christmas (Religious), despite the establishment clause's disassociation. Thank you for participating in this debate period, and have a Merry Christmas!","All Citizens should be required to vote We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.","Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.","\"should voting be done online\" Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don","The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move. Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.","U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.","If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well The first amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1] It is the right of the people to publicly practice their religion. Publicly. The fourteenth amendment extends these rights to equally apply to corporations as legal person hoods. [2] The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice. Holidays have an economic impact on businesses. By recognizing the source of these demands it behooves the federal government to utilize such observances for the benefit of economic growth. If the government made strides to eliminate the inclusion of holiday customs into their public persona, we risk killing the demand it generates. Seeing how the government can not create religious days, it only stands to utilize the days already commonly used by the populace. So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision. [3] That the recognition of Christmas as a holiday, a custom practiced by the people, was not against the establishment clause. Government institutions were not establishing the practice, just recognizing it's prevalence. As such the name Christmas, was not elected by government either. Christmas was being called Christmas 4 centuries before the U.S. was created. It is only the name by which the holiday is known by. Christmas with the use of trees, Santa, reindeer, and present exchanges is a modern amalgamation of corporate advertisement, additions by different populations. To an outside observer Christmas as represented in media, even government accolades, would appear to be a very non-christian holiday. Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://www.becketfund.org...","Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.","hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns","should September 2 be a holiday I have to admit, I burst out laughing when I saw PRO's response. This is going to be good:Rebuttals1: 'well you will never find another war like this. 'So what? You will never find any other war that is akin to the War of 1812, or the Afghanistan War for that matter. Just because you will never find a war like that doesn't make it any more deserving of honor than any other war. It also doesn't change the fact that many other people died in many other wars. 2: 'i have m made my point so let the voting win'Are you kidding me? I'm going to put some of my answer in bold because 'I want to make my point:''well you will never find another war like this. 'The above text is what PRO said. After I successfully rebutted all of his/her arguments, all (s)he could come up with was 'you will never find another war like this guys. Vote PRO! ' You never made your point in this debate. I refuted everything, you refuted nothing. ConclusionI successfully refuted all of PRO's arguments, and PRO refuted nothing. In fact, all (s)he said was: 'Alright, you have a point,' to my arguments. Making September 2nd a holiday would be unfair to the many who died in other wars, as they don't get the honor and respect that the people involved in World War II do. We already honor everybody who were involved in wars: the holiday takes place on November 11 and it is called Remembrance/Veteran's Day. People will not learn from their mistakes if September 2nd is a holiday, because humans have been at war for thousands of years and nothing is going to change. All of my arguments are left uncontested.","Christmas should be cancelled Public holidays relating to the Christian faith such as Christmas Day should be scrapped for the following reasons: 1 – The vast majority of people in the West do not practice Christianity: the United States has the highest number of churchgoers for a developed nation at 25%, whereas in Northern European countries church attendance ranges between 3-12 %. Why then is a celebration associated with a religious minority foisted upon the entire nation? [1] 2 – As businesses shut down for Christmas Day the lost productivity costs industry trillions of dollars: the GDP of the European Union and the United States alone is USD30,533,747 million which means that Christmas costs US and EU firms $83.65 trillion dollars every year. [2] 3 – Shopping for Christmas presents is not only enormously stressful but parents are encouraged by advertisers and through peer pressure to spend more than they can afford on gifts for their children: 52% of families with low and middle incomes turn to high interest debt to cover the cost of Christmas; money that would be better spent on their children's health and education. [3] So come on, it's not too late to cancel Christmas this year: tell all your friends and family that you are not buying into the whole Christmas malarky; lobby your political representative to have the Christmas public holiday withdrawn and, of course, vote Pro! Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...","British Columbia's Family Day Should Be Moved to Match the Rest of Canada's Con asserts that Family Day is stupid. However, Family Day allows Canada to have a holiday that lines up with President's Day in the United States. (1) This is useful due to closeness of Canada & the US's border, economic ties, etc. For example, before Canada had Family Day, the TSX and other Canadian markets would be open while New York and other American markets are closed. This is also inconvenient because while earlier in the month when most Canadians and Americans are working, those in BC will have to catch up to their colleagues out of the province. (2) Therefore, BC should move Family Day to match the rest of Canada's. 1-http://en.wikipedia.org...(Canada) 2-http://www.cbc.ca...","hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations","The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state \"If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests.\" What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply \"Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws.\" I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state \"Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day.\" You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state \"Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote.\" You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state \"The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work.\" This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state \"If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting.\" Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state \"Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional.\" It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.","The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro established that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.”Pro wrote an additional paragraph about holiday observance in the southern hemisphere, but he immediately withdrew the argument. Pro established a burden without cause. We still do not know “why” the Government should remove itself from Holiday observance. Therefore, I will turn it over to Pro. Hopefully we will see a case presented in round two.","Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. May the Fourth be with you! The impact that George Lucas's franchise has had on our culture cannot be overstated. Even while they complain about the changes being made to these movies, and about The Phantom Menace, fans have made this one of the most, if not the most, commercially successful franchises in history. This cannot help having an impact on culture. Moral values have been influenced by Luke Skywalker and Yoda. \"He joined the Dark Side\" has become synonymous with doing something evil. Star Wars changed our culture. I believe that May 4th should be a national holiday. Not a major one like Christmas, but just something recognized by everyone as a tradition. Maybe a few banks can close.","Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D","Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Heck to the yeah. First of all, it's awesome to be able to debate Imabench. Reading his debate are never boring, so I know this will be fun. Second, I am legitimately opposed to celebrating one gender and leaving the others high and dry. I look forward this!","The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.","Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.","The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Hello Heineken. Thanks for accepting this debate. Christmas Day is a holiday under federal law in the United States. On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so. Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars (1). Thus, every tax payer, irrespective of her private religious beliefs, is being forced to subsidize this Christian festival. No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar. The US government has tried, and failed, to excuse this appalling unfairness with the following argument (2), which I’ll paraphrase here: Christmas is a Christian festival, but Non-Christians can join in the activities, so Forcing them to subsidize a Christian festival is a legitimate government activity. The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate “even for” non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up “Christmas” trees Giving gifts Sending greeting cards If the aim is inclusiveness, why not have a government-sponsored solstice celebration on December 19? All those activities for non-Christians would still apply. Then, six days later, anyone who wants to can celebrate the birth of Jesus privately. But why would anyone want to? Not even Christians are pretending that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (3). The winter solstice celebration was hijacked hundreds of years ago. It needs to be returned to the people. However. This idea about winter solstice is just my own suggestion to improve the lives of millions of Americans. There are many other options. Government interference in the “Christmas” festival could be cancelled with no replacement holiday, for example, or the New Year celebrations could be lengthened. The important thing is that the government does not force non-Christians to observe a Christian religious day (by not being allowed to work), and does not force any American to subsidize a Christian religious festival (by using taxes to pay federal employees for the day of observance). The US Department of State claims that religious freedom is a “core objective of U.S. foreign policy” (4). Maybe start at home. The government needs to stop pushing Christmas onto its citizens. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. http://www.usa.gov... 3. http://www.christiananswers.net... 4. http://www.state.gov...","Potato day should be a national holiday for all places I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't","Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less","Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections I understand that my opponent was probably celebrating the holidays, so I extend all arguments.","The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. \" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.","The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.","Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars."],"string":"[\n \"It would be beneficial to the nation (USA) to remove the electoral college system. Getting rid of the electoral college system.... Unconstitutional.\",\n \"hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small\",\n \"Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote I was pondering things we could do to increase voter turnout and I came up with this; every election, we require people to deposit a small sum of money to an election bank about a month before an election they're eligible for; maybe only around $7 dollars, or however much they make per hour. This money has no interest on it or anything like it; once they vote, they can withdraw the money they deposited earlier. If they don't vote, it stays in the account, but they cannot withdraw it. Perhaps the money can be collected from their pay check, income taxes; I'm not sure. It's not a fully formed idea ready for implementation, but hopefully you get the gist of it. I was wondering if anyone had any objections or additions to it. Thanks.\",\n \"The Electoral College should be banned I don't understand this format so I will do it my way C1. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests. When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power.C2. Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign. The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area. C3. Voter fraud If we abolish the Electoral College then there will be riots over who won over voter fraud it will cost the economy about $50 million to investigate,Clean up from riots, Lawsuits, and new ballots for a possible revote.\",\n \"The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections The Aristotle argument does not pertain to this day and age. The world has changed since his time and so has the world of politics. Recall of elections would be very deficient to our system of government. We already have a huge party divide in the United States and people would try to recall elections all the time. This would be terrible, and nothing would get done. I must explain again why i used the Texas example. It shows how much the people react after little or nothing is done. This does pertain to this debate because it is real Americans, taking real action. Also my opponent added new evidence in the last round, while this is not fair i will still respond. 1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source 2. this would expand to national government and would grind the government to a halt Please pro dont tell me what the American people would do or if they would go along party lines. Pro is not America and can not tell us what America will do. He can present evidence of trends in other places and apply it here but he has not so he cant say that. Texas does pertain as i have shown above. Please read my partisan argument above I reassert myown because my arguments contradict his and therefore are a rebuttal.\",\n \"The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections The United States is democracy, and it is absolutely unacceptable to deny people the right to a fair vote. Under the 14th amendment, people will have an equal say in the vote. In the United Sates, the breakup of the Nation into the electoral college unfairly harms those who live in republican or democrats dominated States. Besides, there is always the issue of gerrymandering. It is impossible to gerrymander a system in which everyone is put into the same voting area. This means in order to succeed in popular elections in the United States, candidates must appeal to National issues, not just the issues of a small collection of states. Let's take a hypothetical election in the United States. There are only three sates left. California, Texas, and Florida. Texas and California are guaranteed to vote on party lines, but Florida is a swing state. Both politicians will then base their policies and arguments on Florida issues, as those are the only ones that matter in this election. Therefore an electoral college gives to much power to the a small minority of political diverse states. The recount is almost absolutely unnecessary to worry about. We live in a modern age with (potentially) internet voting, digital transaction, and methods. As a programmer, i can tell you that f we embraced slightly newer technology, we could remove any potential of a recount.\",\n \"There is separation of Church and Sate in the United States. Point One:\\\"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. \\\"[1]Said around the United States in almost every school, this pledge has been in existence and has been used widely ever since. Having separation of Church and State means that in a public institution, there should not be any words in a document about any deity or religious belief. Before, the pledge did not have the phase \\\"under god. \\\" But, in 1954, Congress put a bill through and it was signed into law, which added this phase. [2] Thus, the government did indeed put forth an action with religion in it. Point Two:\\\"In God We Trust. \\\"[3]If you turn around any dollar bill in the United States, you can see this phase above the word \\\"ONE. \\\" Currency is only printed by the Federal Reserve Banks, which is a government institution. Not only it is a motto on our dollar bills, but it is also our country's official motto, signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 as a law. This motto comes the bible it self, \\\"in God I have put my trust;\\\"(Psalms 56:4. ) The bible is the holy book of Judaism and Christianity. Both are considered religions. Point Three:\\\"Monday, December 26 : Christmas Day\\\"[4]This day is a Federal Holiday. In Christianity, it is the day in people believe Jesus was born upon. Most public schools observe this day, along with Easter, the day in which Christians believe Jesus came back to life. Along with this, the white house has a national Christmas tree, which the President lights him self. Other religions have holidays which are school holidays too, such as the New York City system, with a week set aside for Passover, Easter, and Good Friday. [5]Questions for my opponent:1. Why do national holidays have religious roots?2. Why is god stated in many official documents? ------------[1]. http://www.ushistory.org...[2]http://www.religioustolerance.org...[3]http://www.macquirelatory.com...[4]http://www.opm.gov...[5]http://schools.nyc.gov...\",\n \"The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend tax... Western countries are Christian societies, shaped over centuries by the Church. Some, such as the UK, still have an official state church and many others (e.g. Germany, France) support churches with money in some ways. In all Christmas Day is a public holiday. Even in the USA many people would argue that the courts have shut religion out of public life in a way that the Founding Fathers never intended. Such Christian countries should not turn their back upon their heritage and the faith background of the large majority of their citizens. This means Christmas (and other Christian festivals, such as Easter) should continue to be marked officially with public displays. The state can also mark other faith holidays in some way, but it is right that Christmas gets most official attention.\",\n \"If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well \\\"The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice.\\\" While the 14th amendment grants equal practice to corporations as person hood, no entity may act on the behalf of the government in regards to religious practice. Contrary to your argument, the removal of religious affiliation is in no way the same as denying people the opportunity to practice. That was the intent of the establishment clause. While government agencies are prohibited from creating religions, practices, or affiliations they are also prohibited from siding with any religion or the idea of religion over non-religion. The fact that Christmas was established long before the creation of the United States confirms that it was not named by the government. Though it also defines that the United States officially named the holiday defined by government standards after Christmas. Christmas has been defined in R1 as having a predetermined religious connotation. \\\"Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines.\\\" As roughly 70 percent of the United States reports as Christian, it would be illogical to assume that the significance of their most revered holiday is obsolete. \\\"So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision\\\"The decision of the Supreme Court was made in light of current precedence, not necessarily the common logic and upholding of establishment. As the decision was made in 1999, there is reason to believe that the logic and circumstances have changed in light of the last 16 years of disassociation between religion and government. In the meantime, the Pledge of Allegiance, Swearing in Under God, and even the term IN GOD WE TRUST, printed on our money has come into question.http://blog.constitutioncenter.org... Endorsement test The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. From <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...; Unless religious affiliation creates unreasonable individuals, it would be safe to assume that 70 percent of the American people would reasonably observe that the government creating a holiday named after their most sacred holiday is an endorsement of a version of their religion, or, if it is a combination of religions, it is still a promotionn of religion over non-religion.\",\n \"Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college. Regarding United States presidential elections, the electoral college should be replaced by a country-wide popular vote because the electoral college is both unfair and un-American. The United States is a country grounded on equal rights, as shown by the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. The electoral college gives US citizens of heavily populated states more voting power than US citizens of lightly populated states, and therefore Americans are not equal in this manner. It is also an unfair way of determining US presidency because there have been elections that have gone out of favor of the popular vote, and therefore goes against the interests of most American citizens. With a simple country-wide popular vote, all citizens of the United States would bear equal voting rights as well as a fair election.\",\n \"The electoral college should be abolished First of all, yes you are right about the Wikipedia thing, but if you clicked on the link you would have found that I used it as a source for population totals in New Hampshire and California. Okay, you start by suggesting that the electoral college was more legitimate back in the 17, and 1800's based off of what? I don't mean to discredit your argument but you have no evidence to back up the claim that \\\"It was more useful and helpful to preserve democracy and be fair.\\\" Second, Statistically, Donald Trump won the majority vote, by county. One thing you did not specify, was what exactly the majority was, which I assume is the general population. If you look at the 2016 electoral map by county you will see that the majority of Midwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern state counties are red. This is because the Republican Party choose to target the less populated areas in those regions, while the Democratic Party choose to target the densely populated areas of the Westcoast and Eastcoast, with the occasional county out west. By that record, Donald Trump appealed to the rural population over the urban population. In order to gain the necessary electoral votes, Donald Trump would have to gain a huge following in less populated states. With that combined, he won the majority vote by county. County goes to the state level, and if the state voted 2/3 in favor of one party, it's total electoral votes would go to that party. Now answer me this. Why should the Electoral college be abolished? You've thrown around vague statements with little to no evidence or support from your own writing to back your claim up. Such as \\\"How is this fair or logical at all?\\\" and \\\" much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair.\\\" How? you need to elaborate on your statements.\",\n \"Should we change the electoral college from Population to number of actual voters I'd like to challenge the idea that people are affected by Political actions. To the perspective of the average non-voter, the two main reasons why they do not vote are either because they are too busy or they just aren't interested. (. https://www.washingtonpost.com...) If they aren't interested then chances are that politics doesn't affect their daily lives. Voting is a right in the United States and when you say you do not want to vote that is your decision but that means you don't want to be counted in Politics either because you think Politics are boring or you're too busy to either get an absentee ballot or take the time to go to the nearest voting booth and do it. Another reason why a lot of Americans do not vote is because they believe their vote is way too minuscule to even count. (. http://www.livescience.com...) In the end though if we do make the electoral college based on voters then they will have a lot more of a reason to vote. Another thing I would like to point out is that, this is a bipartisan idea. States like Oregon,Maine and Minnesota can have their voices heard much louder. (. http://www.csmonitor.com...) The best reason why people in these states vote is because they know that it really does matter, these people all have a busy 9-5 pm schedule as well and they still come out to vote. Clearly they need their voices heard a lot more then these large states like California or Texas who clearly don't really care. These small states are taking time to addressing what is really a problem in their communities and looking to fix the issue besides sitting around and smoking dope all day or shooting pheasants. If you take the time to actually sit down and listen to debates and vote with a well informed opinion, shouldn't you be allowed to express it more then someone who really doesn't care. It's a lot like the idea of working, shouldn't someone who is working be looked at more favorably then someone who is on Facebook while at their job all day? (. http://www.forbes.com...) This is actually true and I would like to make my point by comparing apathetic non voters to people who don't really do their job. When it comes to efficiency in a company the one universal thing that drives employers crazy is the fact people are too bored so they sit around and surf on Facebook or look on Amazon for random stuff. In my field of work as an Electrician, I have taken many OSHA who have said that being distracted on Facebook on the Job can not only cause an explosion in a refinery but also can ban you from ever being in the Union again. Not only that but good luck ever getting a job in the electrical field ever again. My point is this, if we wish to be a more efficient nation that understands the problems of people who care then we should be addressing people's votes a lot more seriously. Let's stop saying they are too minuscule to ever count and actually show that their votes do count by changing the size of the electoral college every election based on voter turn out. Not only that but then the local governments of these states will begin trying to get their people to vote more. They may put out incentives and create a much better atmosphere. So now my question to my opponent is this, how do you convince someone who is not interested in voting that politics affects their everyday lives?\",\n \"Should we abolish the electoral college Yes because the electoral college is very broken. A person can win the election while only winning 21.8% of the popular vote.\",\n \"Potato day should be a national holiday for all places I do not like potatoes, so using your logic there should be no Potato day. Your opinon is no better than mine, and I am fairly sure there are tons of people who dislike potatoes. I do not mean to sound pretentious, but using the logic of pro against them I technically win.\",\n \"If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well If religious displays and practice are to be separated or secularized from the government, then the federal benefits of the same should be removed as well Apply for acceptance of debate will be done in comments. As this is my first debate, I am testing the waters. As Pro, I will be debating for the logic of removal of benefits of government enacted activities associated with separation of like religious practices, and supplementary absence of logic in non removal As Con, you will be debating for the logic of non removal of said benefits, as well as supplementary absence of logic in removal, or that federal benefits are nonexistent in relation to religious activities I appreciate any criticism that will aid me in future establishment of debates The first round will be definitions and acceptance. No new arguments in the final round No trolling Acceptance of the debate implies; That both Pro and Con agree that Separation of Church and State is recognized and enacted. That both Pro and Con agree to all definitions and rules expressed in Round 1 Clarification may be required, and annotated in comments to facilitate understanding or variation to stated definitions, if agreed upon by instigating party. That both parties may not assume favorable argument from the other, in that the views expressed may not be of the opinion of the debater, merely the argument, and any argument based in assumption or deduction of opposing parties' personal beliefs is invalid Any definitions stated outside of round 1 are open for debate Religious and non-religious are mutually exclusive Benefits referring to positive gain from a party are not negated by deficit or negativity towards the opposing party, wherein a viewpoint determines the classification of an item in question as benefit (i.e. worker vs employer. If it benefits one party involved, it is classified as a benefit) That both parties understand Boolean and logical arguments such as AND, OR, etc. Citations may be immersed in text, or listed following. Definitions;Christmas noun the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts. From <http://dictionary.reference.com...; Benefit noun : a good or helpful result or effect : money that is paid by a company (such as an insurance company) or by agovernment when someone dies, becomes sick, stops working, etc. : something extra (such as vacation time or health insurance) that is given by anemployer to workers in addition to their regular pay From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Thank you for your acceptance\",\n \"The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote In the spirit of democracy, however, isn't the \\\"winner takes all system\\\" obsoleted? Doesn't it vilify the rights of minorities and favor the majority? But if the president campaigned in the big states, wouldn't the minorities of the small states migrate to the majority of the big states, therefore becoming the \\\"majority?\\\" So what? The constitution can be amended. Let's use Bush v. Gore 2000 as an example. Gore had 266 votes. Bush had 271. Without the inclusion of electorate votes, Gore would have won, and prevented the future collapse of the economy. Popular vote was won by Gore. Electoral Vote was won by Bush. Without the electoral college, Bush wouldn't have been elected; and, without the popular vote, Gore wouldn't of been elected. Therefore, the popular vote should not be vilified or considered inaccurate. Politicians vote on other politicians. State pretty much overrides what popularity dictates. Presidents are unfairly elected. So why do we consider ourselves a democracy if something like the Electoral College is permeated and not vilified?\",\n \"Choose the Topic debate!!! Donald Trump Putting animals down that hurt people Reality Family shows are ridiculous Selfies are too pretentious Christmas is the best holiday ever TAKE YOUR PICK\",\n \"I know what day of the week you will vote. Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!\",\n \"The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America. My opponent is willing to go \\\"pro\\\" for any of the main issues listed on their website. I have chosen the Main Issue of Strengthening Democracy for this debate. More Specifically: Election Reform and the Natural Law Party proposal of Abolishing the Electoral College. The party proposes that people should be elected through direct popular vote. So I propose to my opponent a debate on the Abolishment of the Electoral College which is directly under their guidelines for a solution to Election Reform. If my opponent has any problem with this, my opponent can address this in the comment sections so Round 2 may begin the debate. Do Note: I propose that the debate be entirely on this topic as to not have a scattered debate due to the 8,000 character limit on this website.\",\n \"The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia I do want say something key, I am not completely against the idea, But there is a trend of society overall. Traditions rarely last long, The original ones. July 4th is the day America became independent, And adopted the declaration of independence. Most people don't know that. Originally it was not a holiday, As is is now, Instead it is a celebration, Why, Just to celebrate. This does not apply to everyone, Just a lot of people in America. Also you said \\\"Australians only care if they get a day off. (most)\\\" so if that is why they are making the holiday, Then it should not be one, Also my opinion. My final idea is this. If people don't know about the event as much now, Someone has to announce it. Someone who is power and has influence, Most powerful people would not go through the trouble of announcing it, So it's likely it would not happen anyways. But still, I'm not completely against the holiday, I just think a holiday is a day of celebration then a day of mourning. Not completely against it though\",\n \"Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day This is my first debate, so forgive me if I\\\"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don\\\"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don\\\"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don\\\"t follow politics so they don\\\"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn\\\"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won\\\"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?\",\n \"U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. Hopefully he will return to the debate next round.\",\n \"The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. I will be arguing that the Electoral College system in the United States should be abolished in favor of direct election. DefinitionsDirect election: a national popular vote that is won by getting a majority of votes, or a plurality that surpasses 40%. EC: Electoral CollegeGE: General election. Only refers to the presidential election. Don't do semantics, trolling, red herrings, or fallacies, be civil, and good luck!\",\n \"Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else I realize it is called Christmas, but that doesn't make it Christian, as believe it or not Christmas started out as a pagen holiday. . http://www.simpletoremember.com..., I brought this up for the fact it is what you are suggesting that it should be Christmas not happy holidays. Doing so the U. S. A. would have to pass a law stating that, but that is Unconstitutional. This would be true but there is no Church of the Atheists. So forcing atheism on laws is actually a good thing, this was proved since many of our first presidents were Quakers (Society of friends. ) They pushed this policy and wanted everyone to get along. Under the theories of Quakerism everyone should get along with hugs and be happy.\",\n \"Impromptu, with rebuttal Thanks to my opponent for a great debate and excellent arguments. I will keep my rebuttal simple. My opponent has failed to sufficiently affirm the topic, \\\"The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote.\\\" Not only does my opponent spend most of his time pointing out flaws in the Electoral College rather that explaining why the President should be elected by popular vote, the case he makes to affirm the topic is filled with errors. My opponent's argument begins by stating that, \\\"Under this system, every four years, every U.S. citizen would vote for who they wanted to be President.\\\" While this is not an error is logic, is it na�ve. The 2008 election had the highest voter turnout in years with 131032799 votes cast [1]. But this is still only about 63% of people eligible to vote [2]. What is to suggest that the popular vote system would bring in more voters than the electoral system? My opponent goes on to say that the winner would simply be the one with the most votes, subject to any recounts if the vote is close. But he later states that \\\"If the {2000} election had been decided by the popular vote, the controversy over the hanging chads, et al., wouldn't have mattered one jot.\\\" It is true that if that particular election had been under the popular vote system the recounts wouldn't have mattered or even had to have been performed. But again, what is to suggest that the popular vote system is better? My opponent has acknowledged that the popular vote would still be subject to recounts and therefore the same controversy that plagued the 2000 election could plague others. The next point made is that \\\"in the extremely unlikely event of a tie, a run-off election would be held, maybe a week or two later.\\\" The only purpose a run-off election would serve, however, is to eliminate third party candidates, which hardly influence the vote anyways. In the 2008 election, third party candidates garnered zero votes in the Electoral College and only 1.42% of the popular vote [3]. Also, a run-off election would be incredibly difficult to prepare for in one to two weeks and highly unproductive to prepare for in advance, not to mention costly. The 2008 presidential election cost $1.6 billon [4], twice as much as the 2004 presidential election. If my opponent is looking for a way to break a tie, the preferential system would be a better option than the popular vote because it would automatically break ties [5]. But this is irrelevant because once again my opponent has failed to prove why the popular vote system is better than the Electoral College. Lastly, my opponent states what would be eliminated through his plan, \\\"No electoral college, no deciding vote in the House of Representatives (like in 1824 [1]) - just one popular vote, which is the ultimate decider.\\\" First, \\\"no electoral college\\\" does not prove why the President should be elected by popular vote. Second, my opponent seems to take issue with the deciding vote in the House of Representatives. I will elaborate further on this in the next section on my rebuttal. To summarize, it is clear that I am taking issue with the fact that my opponent has failed to give evidence or even reason as to why, \\\"The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote.\\\" If I had to affirm this topic I probably would have included discussions of how the United States is founded on democracy and how democracy includes everyone and maybe why a popular vote is more cost effective. Instead, throughout his case, my opponent just points out flaws in the current system, the Electoral College. My opponent tries to address the issue by discussing why the popular vote is fair, fair being defined as \\\"free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice\\\" [6]. But all he does is give examples as to why the Electoral College is unfair. By trying to prove the Electoral College as unfair and expecting it to prove the popular vote system as fair is affirming the consequent, a serious logical error. Just because something is proven to be fair or unfair does not mean proof as to why another item is the opposite. The Electoral College is not the subject of the topic, nor is the topic asking for why it is worse. Because my opponent has simply failed to affirm, I urge a vote of negation. -Sources- [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com... [3] http://www.fec.gov... [4] http://blogs.wsj.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com...\",\n \"Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college. Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that presidential elections should be decided by a popular vote of the entire United States.\",\n \"The Electoral College Should be Abolished This debate will cover the discussion of whether or not the electoral college should or should not be abolished in favor of electing the President of the United States by a national popular vote.\",\n \"Electoral College Should Be Abolished George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for democracy and for the authority of the Pres...\",\n \"Resolved: Atheists Shouldn't Observe Religious Holidays Christmas is just around the corner and every year this question pops up...\\\"why do you, an atheist, celebrate Christmas? Aren't you being a hypocrite?\\\" So I am taking the Con and pose this debate to anyone who is willing to tell me why I should NOT observe Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, Rosh Hashanah, L. Ron Hubbard's birthday or Halloween. I will start by defining some of the terms that will be referenced: Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious: 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances http://www.merriam-webster.com... Religious Holiday: a day specified for religious observance http://dictionary.reference.com... Observe: 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way http://www.merriam-webster.com... Hypocrite: 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings http://www.merriam-webster.com... Christmas: 1 : a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Easter: a feast that commemorates Christ's resurrection and is observed with variations of date due to different calendars on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon http://www.merriam-webster.com... St. Patrick's Day: ...an annual feast day which celebrates Saint Patrick (circa AD 385–461), the most commonly recognised of the patron saints of Ireland, and is generally celebrated on 17th of March. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rosh Hashanah: ...a Jewish holiday commonly referred to as the \\\"Jewish New Year.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... L. Ron Hubbard's Birthday: The Church of Scientology recognizes March 13, the birthday of founder L. Ron Hubbard, as a religious holiday. http://altreligion.about.com... Halloween: is an annual holiday celebrated on October 31. It has roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Christian holy day of All Saints, but is today largely a secular celebration. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is not to be a venue for prostelising or for discussing the merits or demerits of any belief system. Keep it clean and on point.\",\n \"The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro stated:\\\"On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so.\\\" Rebuttal: The Federal Government does not force it's employees to \\\"celebrate this religious festival\\\". The paid holiday period can be observed, but it can also be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion best suited to their ideology. In fact, not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays. The Department of Defense requires it's employees to submit a request for Holiday-down time. All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty. The military leave policy can be review here: Army --Army Regulation 600-8-10 - Leaves and Passes Air Force --Air Force Instruction 36-3003 - Military Leave Program Navy --MILPERSMAN 1050, Leave and Liberty Marine Corps --Marine Corps Order (MCO) P1050.3H - Regulations for Leave, Liberty, and Administrative Absence To satisfy the burden of this premise, Pro must show that observance of the Christmas ceremony is being forced upon federal employees, that mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee. ------------------ Pro stated:\\\"Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars.\\\" Rebuttal: The Unites States government's gross annual revenue from domestic product sales is estimated at 2.9 trillion dollars at the Federal level. [1] Approximately 19.5% of these sales occur over the Holiday season. [2] The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay. ------------------ Pro stated: \\\"No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar.\\\" Rebuttal: The Jewish Holiday of Purim is a big Israeli gift-exchanging holiday, but Hanukkah celebrates eight days of gift-giving in the North American tradition. The Muslims exchange gifts over two Eids in Ramadan as well. The Indian celebration of Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities. Hence: The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact, while wikipedia reports that 78% of Americans are Christians, a recent Gallup reported in the \\\"Statistical Illusion\\\" article showed that only 20% of Americans are truly Christians, as defined by their Church. [3] That means 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday. ------------------ Pro Claimed: The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate \\\"even for\\\" non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights, Putting up \\\"Christmas\\\" trees, Giving gifts, Sending greeting cards\\\" Rebuttal: I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation. Which federal law, passed in which year by what ruling body made the above list a federal \\\"designation\\\"? This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists. Federal observance of the Christmas Holiday was passed in 1870. It did not dictate how the holiday should be observed. Conclusion: It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance. Non-government entities are not required to shut down for Christmas. \\\"Constitutionally, there are no \\\"national holidays\\\" in the United States because Congress only has authority to create holidays for federal institutions (including federally owned properties) and employees, and for the District of Columbia.\\\" [4] Lastly, it should be noted that getting time off for the Christmas season does not mandate Church attendance or religious observance. You are free to spend Christmas catching up on sleep, getting drunk, or like most Americans, try to take advantage of spectacular discounts on retail prices. Going to Church is optional. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... [1] http://www.nrf.com... [2] http://www.christianitytoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]\",\n \"The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia So i am not completely against making a holiday in australia, I just think there are better way to commemorate the fallen people. When people make a holiday out of something its normally a day of celebration. There are (in america) veterans day and other events so its not completely a bad idea. Instead of making a holiday, I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. What I find in holidays is people make a Mockery of the event, Even in america, So there are better ways to commemorate it my opinion. Also I give full respect to you and hopefully have a good debate.\",\n \"should September 2 be a holiday 60 million lives lost and i wanna see what people would have to say because we all have family that some way helped in the war and these people should be remembered the troops and civilians. this should a holiday in every country from all the allies to all the axis.\",\n \"The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote I would be happy to oblige. According to http://answers.yahoo.com..., the electoral college's original intent was \\\"The same purpose it serves today: to balance the political needs of the small states with the overwhelming power of the large states.\\\" However, I'd like to dispute the obsolescent mechanics of the system. According to http://news.yahoo.com..., \\\"The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness and become a potential tool in the war between and among political parties. There is no reason the president can't be elected in 2012, through popular vote, by the people. Not by a college of politicians, appointed by politicians, casting votes for districts drawn by politicians.\\\" With all this being said, I am taking Pro of this argument. I do not believe the electoral college is a modern process that should be taken during presidential elections. It was made years ago by our forefathers when doing so was essential; however, times have changed, and citizens are yearning for their own say in what goes on. After all, without the electoral college, Al Gore would've won, and let's face it: America would've been a heck of a lot better if Gore was elected.\",\n \"All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Since no evidence or reason was given as to why \\\"talk like a pirate day\\\" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute.\",\n \"Republicans vs. Democrats; Political FIGHT While I agree Holiday is a good song, I prefer good 'ol classic rock. Aerosmith and KISS in particular.\",\n \"Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary. Ironically today is the day of the Iowa Caucus. GO MIKE HUCKABEE!!! SUPPORT THE HUCKABOOM www.mikehuckabee.com\",\n \"Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote So this debate will be about the electoral college in the US.\",\n \"The Electoral College should be abolished The united states was founded as a democracy, Not just a republic. \\\" This statement is inherently false and a common misconception (which I debunked previously). The founders intended for it to NOT be a democracy. It has some democratic features, But the point of it being a republic is that it is not a democracy nor was it founded to be one. \\\"The Electoral College system has gone beyond protecting the minority and has instead subverted the will of the majority on several occasions. I don't think candidates would necessarily campaign only in big cities, America is pretty evenly split between urban and rural\\\" The point IS to not have a simple majority mob-rule an entire country. It's not about urban and rural, The populations of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Georgia are about 50% of the entire country. Assuming that the % of registered voters is correlated to the % of the population (which it is), Then the ruling president would just pass laws and pander to these 8 states. That means the people living in the other 42 states are not represented in the government. Can you imagine that? The population of 42 states not represented. The electoral college guarantees the representation of all people in the government. \\\"but in America we have an unrepresented majority in all of the branches of government. It has grown beyond a simple check and it has subverted the will of the people. \\\" I think there is an unrepresented majority in the house of reps mainly due to gerrymandering, Which is a whole other issue. I think, Historically speaking, The president has been representative of the majority of the country. The electoral college is certainly not perfect. However, In the vast majority of elections the winner turns out to be the one with the most votes, And because of the electoral college that person had to campaign all over the US instead of just a couple states. It might have subverted the will of the people in some cases but that isn't congenitally bad for the country in the long run. I would say the electoral college is defiantly a better system than having the popular vote decide. It might need to be amended to fit the population a little but more, But the system itself, In my opinion, Is the greatest, Fairest one in the world. What other system would you recommend?\",\n \"if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country. You responded,\\\"There is no American culture to corrupt or diffuse.\\\" Defining Culture , from the web page,\\\" Livescience\\\" \\\"American Culture: Traditions and Customs of the United States\\\" by Kim Ann Zimmermann, Live Science Contributor | January 15, 2015 Definding Culture: American culture encompasses the customs and traditions of the United States. \\\"Culture encompasses religion, food, what we wear, how we wear it, our language, marriage, music, what we believe is right or wrong, how we sit at the table, how we greet visitors, how we behave with loved ones, and a million other things,\\\" said Cristina De Rossi, an anthropologist at Barnet and Southgate College in London. So by this definition given above, America has a culture of its own. \\\"....The term Western culture often refers broadly to the cultures of the United States and Europe. ....\\\" \\\"American as apple pie\\\" has come to mean something that is authentically American\\\" American holidays.....\\\"celebrated only in the United States....\\\" \\\".....Many holidays are celebrated only in the United States...\\\" \\\".....Many holidays are celebrated only in the United States. Americans celebrate their independence from Britain on July 4. Memorial Day, celebrated on the last Monday in May, honors those who have died in military service. Labor Day, observed on the first Monday in September, celebrates country\\\"s workforce. Thanksgiving, another distinctive American holiday, falls on the fourth Thursday in November and dates back to colonial times to celebrate the harvest. Presidents\\\" Day, marking the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, is a federal holiday that occurs on the third Monday in February. The contributions of veterans are honored on Veterans\\\" Day, observed on Nov. 11. The contributions of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. are remembered on the third Monday in January.\\\" European culture is the base Culture of America, Immigrants have added their cultural influence to American culture but theirs is only an minuscule addition, not a elimination of America's own national culture, The Question that I asked was,\\\"..if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country, and so your response drifted away from the topic question although the flooding of foreign aliens could be considered one way to bring about the wrecking/ destruction, and dissolution of America as a nation.\",\n \"Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his \\\"accomplishments\\\" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)\",\n \"State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government How fitting, Pro decided to forfeit on Election Day. And in saying that, I hope all US Debate.org folks go out and vote today. For voting is \\\"The Great Debate!\\\"\",\n \"The Electoral College harms the democratic nature of the U.S. Government. I would also like to apologize for my delayed response. I would like to start by defining my argument with three contentions. First, the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. Second, the electoral college allows presidents to win without the popular vote. Finally, the electoral college puts too much importance in campaigning in swing states. Many voters don't like the electoral college. Gallup polls show that over the years the desire for a popular vote over the electoral college in America have gone up and up. Currently, 62% of Americans are in favor of the popular vote as opposed to using the electoral college in the presidential election, while only 35% of Americans prefer the electoral college (1). There are four primary instances in history where a candidate won the people's hearts but lost the election. \\\"Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000). \\\" (2). Four is four too many if you ask me. Being in a state that always votes against your party means that come election time your vote doesn't even matter, because the electoral vote will go to the other candidate either way. Finally, I contend that too much focus is put on swing states during presidential elections. This is of course because usually the way many state's electoral votes will go is obvious. Texas has voted republican consistently for years and California is an assured win for the democrats. This means that campaigning in these states is useless because the votes are guaranteed. It is for this reason that the campaign spending in Ohio was massive for both candidates, whilst spending in states like Alabama was almost non existent. My point is clear. The electoral college detracts from democracy. Vote Affirmative. I await my opponents response eagerly. 1. . http://www.gallup.com... 2. . http://www.infoplease.com...\",\n \"the electoral college should be abolished 1) A republic is defined as, \\\"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.\\\" http://dictionary.reference.com... This is an actual definition instead of self defined interpretation of what a Republic is. \\\"Chosen directly or INDIRECTLY by them\\\"- the president is chosen indirectly, but is still determined by popular vote. 2) Yes it is possibly for the winner of the election to loose popular vote, but is any system perfect? No! So why is the electoral college better than popular vote? It protects individuals in small states, and protects the views of the minorities. New York City has a population of 8.3 million, while both nebraska and iowa have a combined population of under 5 million. Iowa and Nebraska are two states known for farming, and the midwest is the \\\"bread basket of the United States, and makes a large portion of the worlds food. If we have a popular vote only system farmers would not have a strong voice in the political spectrum. WHen one city is larger than many states combined, then many people will have worthless votes. Nobody will campaign in the midwest but only in large cities around the country. This is only one example of people loosing their voices. There are also ranches, and others who will loose their voices. 3) My opponent says that voters are discouraged from voting because he says their votes don't matter, but they actually do. Legal Requirements or Pledges Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ALABAMA \\\" Party Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\" 17-19-2 ALASKA \\\" Party Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\" 15.30.040; 15.30.070 CALIFORNIA \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 6906 COLORADO \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 1-4-304 CONNECTICUT \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 9-175 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA \\\" DC Pledge / DC Law \\\" \\\" 1-1312(g) FLORIDA \\\" Party Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\" 103.021(1) HAWAII \\\" State Law \\\" \\\"\\\" 14-26 to 14-28 MAINE \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 805 MARYLAND \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 20-4 MASSACHUSETTS \\\" Party Pledge / State Law \\\" Ch. 53, \\\" 8, Supp. MICHIGAN \\\" State Law \\\" \\\"168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) MISSISSIPPI \\\" Party Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\"23-15-785(3) MONTANA \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 13-25-104 NEBRASKA \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 32-714 NEVADA \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 298.050 NEW MEXICO \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.) NORTH CAROLINA \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.) OHIO \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 3505.40 OKLAHOMA \\\" State Pledge / State Law \\\" 26, \\\"\\\" 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.) OREGON \\\" State Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\" 248.355 SOUTH CAROLINA \\\" State Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\" 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.) VERMONT \\\" State Law \\\" title 17, \\\" 2732 * VIRGINIA \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory \\\" \\\"Shall be expected\\\" to vote for nominees.) WASHINGTON \\\" Party Pledge / State Law \\\" \\\"\\\" 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.) WISCONSIN \\\" State Law \\\" \\\" 7.75 WYOMING \\\" State Law \\\" \\\"\\\" 22-19-106; 22-19-108 No Legal Requirement Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ARIZONA ARKANSAS DELAWARE GEORGIA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MINNESOTA MISSOURI NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW YORK NORTH DAKOTA PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH WEST VIRGINIA Over half the states have laws requiring electors to vote with the popular vote of the state. Yes some states don't, but electors vote with the popular vote more than 99% of the time. It is an extremely rare occurrence that an elector would vote against popular vote, and an elector voting against popular vote is not present in 20th century politics. Popular vote would cause less people to turn out to vote, when a city is bigger than your entire state your vote has no effect. 4) Also, America is a two party system and even if we have popular vote a third party candidate will not win an election. In 1976 North Carolina was a blue state, popular vote and electoral college voted democrat. North Carolina then became a consistent Republican state until 2008. In 2008 North Carolina became a \\\"blue state\\\" once again. This shows that entrenched states will not always vote the same way as my opponent has tried to show. In 1992 Bill Clinton won 2,281,815 votes while the Republican candidate, George Bush, won 2,496,071 million votes. This is only about 200,000 vote difference. This shows that the right candidate can make a difference in \\\"entrenched\\\" states, as my opponent states. In 2004 George W. Bush won 44% of the popular vote in california. Both Texas and California are the states most likely to continue to vote along party lines, but as shown they can be very close states in some elections.\",\n \"The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas NO public holiday, no public funds for Christmas trees, no official acknowledgement of the day.Actually, I want to go further and say that here, in the southern hemisphere, Christmas should be actively discouraged. It's summer! We should just be lazing around with cocktails! Instead, I came back into the city today and the traffic is horrible and everyone looks stressed. However, since this site is in the northern hemisphere, I'll just go with the resolution as it is.\",\n \"We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Voters, I know this has not been much of a debate. In fact, it wasn't a debate at all. I just want to state my stance to the voters to garner their opinions. I believe that Columbus Day is a symbolic holiday in which we celebrate the peak of the renaissance, and the improvements of technology that came along with it - medicine, government, etc. I also believe that Columbus Day is an important part of our past - and shouldn't be eradicated from calendars. Famous songs, poems, and other forms of media were created to celebrate Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example. I would also like to state that my opponent's argument is inconsistent. If Columbus Day should not be celebrated because of the treatment of the Natives, should we rename cities like Columbus? Should we dismantle statutes of Columbus?No. Although Columbus did not discovered America, he was the leader of the voyage that put it into the limelight in Europe. He might not have spotted it first - but I believe that we need to remember his braveness, his stamina, his wanting to continue on. If he had been to afraid to cross the Atlantic, America would be much different. No one can deny this; Columbus made a dent in history, and we should remember this by celebrating Columbus Day. Voters, please vote for who's argument is more logical, who had better conduct. I participated in every round. My opponent forfeited two of the three rounds. I provided reasons for why I believe we need to celebrate Columbus Day. My opponent provided very little fact and cited few to no resources. Voters, vote for who won.\",\n \"Christmas should be cancelled Thanks for your post, and allow me to wish you seasons greetings. This is my very first debate, so I apologize in advance for any procedural errors. From your opening remarks, I am not sure whether you are advocating for the removal of Christmas Day as a public holiday, or arguing for the complete ban of Christmas celebration altogether (or both). My confusion stems from your point # 3 regarding the stress caused by shopping for Christmas, advertising, etc. I do not see what effecting removing Christmas as a public holiday would have on shopping stress or advertising. Your clarification here would be appreciated. That said, and to be on the safe side, I will argue against canceling Christmas altogether, and hopefully address the public holiday issue in the process. I will first make my case for not canceling Christmas, and then attempt to rebut your arguments. C1-It is not necessarily religious. It is true that the historical roots of Christmas stem from the religious tradition of celebrating the birth of Christ, but if one looks back at the tradition even farther, the pre-Christian origins of the winter celebration are clear. [1] Over time, Christmas has certainly become increasingly secularized. It has evolved into more of a cultural event focused on joy and giving, rather than a strict religious observance. This is supported by the US Courts when addressing suits brought on by those seeking to end Christmas as a public holiday due to the establishment clause of the US Constitution. The courts ruled that Christmas, \\\"has a valid secular purpose, it does not have the effect of endorsing religion in general or Christianity in particular, and it does not impermissibly cause excessive entanglement between church and state.\\\" [2] Christmas is at a point now where it can be comfortably celebrated by Christians and non-Christians alike. I have many non-Christian friends who vigorously engage in Christmas celebrations. Why even the renown atheist Richard Dawkins celebrates the holiday. [3] C2-Charitable giving increases during the holidays Surveys show that charitable giving increases during the holiday season. I acknowledge that the reason for the increase might be due to many factors not necessarily associated with Christmas (last minute donations for tax purposes, needs of the poor due to cold weather, etc), but it is clear that a tradition of giving during Christmas has a significant impact in increased donations. [4] C3-Economic Benefits My arguments for the economic benefit of Christmas will be addressed as part of my rebuttal. C4-It's just plain fun People derive great joy from the traditions associated with Christmas. Here are just a few examples: • The eager anticipation of the holiday • Family and friends coming together • Great food (and drink for that matter – I love eggnog) • Singing Christmas carols • Exchanging gifts • Trimming the tree • Mistletoe • Sharing the joys of laughter and good cheer And if you are really against the whole Christmas celebration, the good news is that participation is optional. Rebuttal \\\"1 – The vast majority of people in the West do not practice Christianity: the United States has the highest number of churchgoers for a developed nation at 25%, whereas in Northern European countries church attendance ranges between 3-12 %. Why then is a celebration associated with a religious minority foisted upon the entire nation?\\\" Church Attendance is not a pre-requisite of Christianity. A person is a Christian if they consider themselves a follower of Christ. How they chose to manifest that personal designation is, well, personal. The bottom line is that Christians are not a minority in the US or UK. 76% of the US population [5] and 72% in the UK [6] consider themselves Christian. \\\"2 – As businesses shut down for Christmas Day the lost productivity costs industry trillions of dollars: the GDP of the European Union and the United States alone is USD30,533,747 million which means that Christmas costs US and EU firms $83.65 trillion dollars every year.\\\" It is unreasonable to assume that GDP in the US and the European Union comes to a complete stand still on Christmas day. I can tell you from personal experience that I've unfortunately had to work on Christmas Day several times. The truth is that Christmas has a huge beneficial impact to the economy as Kathleen Antriim's column outlines [7]. If we were to end Christmas, consider all of the retail, manufacturing and ancillary business that would be effected. Furthermore, if you are seriously complaining about the net GDP loss for declaring a public holiday, should we not also get rid of New Year's Day as well? \\\"3 – Shopping for Christmas presents is not only enormously stressful but parents are encouraged by advertisers and through peer pressure to spend more than they can afford on gifts for their children: 52% of families with low and middle incomes turn to high interest debt to cover the cost of Christmas; money that would be better spent on their children's health and education\\\" You've obviously never met my wife, as she actually considers Christmas shopping a relaxing experience. It sounds like your gripe is with stress, advertising, peer pressure and people who spend irresponsibly. The mere fact that Christmas is involved does not warrant its removal. People get fat from eating too much food, but food is not the problem, people's behavior is the problem. Cancelling Christmas is not the solution. People taking personal responsibility is. I can absolutely guarantee you that if we end Christmas, people will still get stressed, people will still experience peer pressure, people will still spend irresponsibly, and advertisers will still advertise. It is unfortunate, but true. Conclusion Christmas is enjoyed by a vast majority of people, Christian and non-Christian alike. We should embrace it as a wonderful time of year. Let the kids open their presents on Christmas Morning, and let Mom & Dad have a day off so they can join their kids in the celebration. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.becketfund.org... [3] http://writerchick99.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.thestreet.com... [5] http://religions.pewforum.org... [6] http://www.communities.gov.uk... [7] http://dev.www.washingtonexaminer.com...\",\n \"The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro stated: “By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true.” Rebuttal: Naturally. The debate is not concerned with if Christmas has federal recognition. I already stated that the Holiday received federal recognition in 1870. My opponent’s burden is to show why this recognition is unfair, unconstitutional or otherwise undesirable. This is an empty objection. --------------------- Pro stated: “It’s bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow.” Rebuttal: Again, my opponent failed to argue how a “mandatory” paid holiday is unfavorable. Stating that the employee is “forced” to observe the day would insinuate that the employee is forced to pray, worship or otherwise partake in the ritual. Instead, the employee is given a fully compensated period of leave which can be spent in manner desirable to the employee. My opponent has failed to show a victim group. --------------------- Pro remarked: I suppose they (the Federal Government) keep the essential services running. I don’t really see how that affects the argument, though. Rebuttal: The argument is affected by the mere fact that federal observance is a luxury, not a duty. A vast congress of uniformed service members are forced to forego observance in lieu of mandatory hazardous duty in foreign, hostile conditions. This premise nullifies the entire concept of “forced” observance. With many Federal agencies, we actually see forced non-observance. As the Air Force core value states:” Service before self.” Pro flagrantly dropped this argument. --------------------- Pro remarked: You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen’s feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. Rebuttal: My opponent clearly missed the premise. As I stated in round 2, the federal recognition of Christmas passed in 1870 by full recognition of both Houses. The representatives of the American Public introduced the bill and so it’s only logical that an equal measure is required to repeal the bill. By ignoring public opinion my opponent has conceded an incredible pillar to his premise, which is the Law that recognized Christmas to begin with. This is the second point my opponent has flagrantly dropped. --------------------- Pro wasted an incredible amount of space answering questions that weren’t asked. These, above any other arguments, are the most ridiculous arguments my opponent has furnished. It’s not a difficult task to debate someone when you grant yourself the luxury of putting words in their mouth. Highly condescending. Rebuttal: The purpose of the revenue snapshot was to illuminate the vast importance that Christmas has to our economy. By granting Federal employees a paid winter vacation, it encourages the employee to participate in the holiday economy. In essence, the paid holiday leave is most certainly being filtered back into the economy, stimulating the incredible revenue growth experienced only during this season. The incredible profits enjoyed by the Federal Government also indicate that public support for the festivity is pervasive, making an appeal to authority or an appeal to ethics irrelevant. As I’ve stated before, my opponent has failed to establish a victim group. It would have been a good start for him to show another religion campaigning for federal recognition. Perhaps he could have cited a secular appeal to the courts to remove the Holiday. Alas, my opponent made no such arguments at all. --------------------- Pro stated: So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can’t Christmas be like that too? Rebuttal: Laws don’t change because you really, really want them to. Christmas probably “could” be like that too, but you must show why it should be like that too. --------------------- Pro said: Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. Rebuttal: Amazing objection. Perhaps my opponent doesn’t realize that Winter Solstice is Pagan and not a secular observance? It dates back to the Norse empire and Rome. [1] Additionally, as I’ve already stated, Christmas observance is relative. Christians observe it religiously, the secularist observes it culturally. My opponent has not only dropped this point, he has also failed to show that Federal observance is religious in nature. This is the third premise dropped by my opponent. ------------------ Pro cited the following source: “Christmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans.” http://www.usa.gov...... Rebuttal: That is a definition from a public relations website, it’s not a law. Additionally, the source directly concedes that Christmas observance is not necessarily Christian. If my opponent would like to see what a legal guideline is, let me cite the ruling of Ganulin vs. The United States (1999). As per the judge: “Courts have repeatedly recognized that the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized. ...By giving federal employees a paid vacation day on Christmas, the government is doing no more than recognizing the cultural significance of the holiday.” [2] Argument extended. ------------------ Conclusion: Pro built a weak and careless resolution in his first round. Without rhyme or reason, he stated simply that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.” As we can see from the debate, Pro immediately dropped the first two burdens. This is most likely because he realized too late that Federal Observances are not public. As I stated (and my opponent dropped this argument also), there is a difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday. Instead, my opponent focused on the third portion of his burden ONLY. Remarkably, he never established a single argument for his burden. Rather, he spent the entirety of his debate trying to defend against my attacks on his burden. My opponent has clearly failed to satisfy the burden he laid out in round one. Furthermore, he has failed to adequately defend against my attacks. This debate was very on-sided but I would like to thank my opponent regardless. I found the topic worthwhile and this debate helped me establish an educated opinion on the issue. I’d like to thank the voter for reading the arguments and (without any pun intended) I’d like to wish everyone a peaceful and joyful holiday season. Vote Con. http://www.bbc.co.uk... [1] http://atheism.about.com... [2]\",\n \"Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino \\\"Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. \\\" Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.\",\n \"Presidential Election 2016 Who do you think is going to win on Election Day?\",\n \"Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else Religion aspectIn America today there is an increasing number of Atheists and one would be insulting another if you say the phrase Merry Christmas, because you could offend Jews, Muslims, and Atheists. Jews would prefer that Hanukkah should a national holiday, because they believe that Jesus was not our savior and that he was more of a prophet. Muslims are against almost everything that is Christian and Christmas would be one of them. Atheists are in this allusion that God doesn't exists so you would be appeasing one person and offending another.\",\n \"Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.\",\n \"That Age of Empires is superior to Empire Earth I guess he needs the extra time. Did I mention that today is actually international vote-Pro day? No? . ..\",\n \"should September 2 be a holiday I accept. I will be arguing that September 2 (end of World War II) should not be a holiday. What PRO fails to understand is that we already have a holiday in honor of anybody who served in wars and all the civilian casualties --it takes place on November 11 and its called Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day. Estimates about how many people that have died from war range from 150 000 000-1 000 000 000 people [1]. Let's suppose that only 150 million people died in wars. PRO admits that 60 million people died in World War II, so all of the deaths in every other wars amount to 90 million. Do you see what I'm getting at?If only 150 million people died in every war ever, making a special holiday for those who served specifically in World War II would be extremely unfair to people who served in other wars, as they aren't getting as much respect and credit for their efforts. Not only that, but 60 million people are getting honored rather than 90 million. Singling out specifically 60 million out of 150 million is unfair to the other soldiers/civilians and ludicrous, especially since it is more probable that a higher number of casualties were a result from wars.Yes, World War II was a tragedy, but PRO's claim that specifically those who were involved in that specific war rather than every person involved in every war should somehow receive more credit, respect and honor than others who were involved in every other war is ridiculous, not to mention we already honor everybody who served and/or died in wars.Therefore, vote CON.Ciatations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...\",\n \"You choose the topic International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.\",\n \"Scream at the Sky day is useless I agree that its a stress reliever for some people. However, the protest is useless when it comes to changing the voting system. Your right that only a few people have won even though they did not win popular vote. However, this just goes to show that most of the time, the electoral college works with the people. Continuing, 46.4% voters voted for Trump, while 48.5% voted for Clinton. (popular vote) The difference was 2 percent. Although that's still a large sum of people, it was only two percent when added up together. Also, a vast majority of Clinton's votes came from large Democratic states, like California. While Trump won people across the country, Clinton won people in large states. Having places like California and NY basically control who gets elected is not in the peoples best interest. The electoral college is their to make sure all states get what they want. And even though you are right about some protests making a difference, this one likely will not. Screaming at the sky does not offer solutions to the \\\"problem\\\". It does not address anything at all really. All it is is one big public tantrum. A thousand people is not a big number when their are millions of people in America. I'm betting that the vast majority of people in the USA can handle frustration better than screaming. http://www.cnn.com...\",\n \"Abolish all holidays I am new to this so I posted my argument in the comment section.... Ok. For one I do believe everyone who works for a living should have the means to have plenty of time off work. Here in the U.S. we have many set holidays where everybody does there thing on the same weekend or day which causes mass congestion and takes from the quality of enjoying time off . My second thought is that are largest holidays are based on falsehoods and make-believe and the truth and facts of history will never be accepted because of it. There is know known birthdate for Jesus and the winter holiday was based on paganism and earthy things. There was no cozy get together between native A americans and Pilgrims, the west was one through brutal massacres and genocide and so on and so forth. My third thought amount many is that I believe it is healthier to spread it evenly and make everyday important fun and meaningful and there are studies that show that people are not any happier after holidays and are more likely to be less happy .\",\n \"More spending in elections undermines public confidence \\\"A Bad Day for Democracy\\\". The Christian Science Monitor. January 22, 2010: \\\"this potential spending will create even greater fear of political reprisal for unpopular votes, expand conflicts of interest, and further undermine the public’s confidence in government’s ability to act in the public interest.\\\"\",\n \"The electoral college should be abolished Ok I'm going to elaborate now. I admit I have fallen short on that. The purpose of establishing the electoral college was because the Founders were scared of a single man (or woman) influencing public opinion as a whole, being elected president, and becoming a dictator. They feared that a political agenda could easily overcome more than 50% of the population, so they created the electoral college to give everyone a fair and equal representation in the election Source: https://www.factcheck.org... I understand how Donald Trump. I understand the electoral college. But what I'm saying is the winner of the popular vote on the national level (Hillary Clinton) should have won the presidency. By the way, I said she won the \\\"popular vote\\\" in my previous argument. I think it's pretty obvious what that means. It means that she won the majority vote on the national level. Now I will explain in simpler terms why the electoral college should be abolished. Imagine that you and 9 of your friends (making 10 people) are debating over which restaurant to go to. The whole group agrees that everyone will vote and everyone will have to go to the restaurant with the most votes. Everyone votes, and out of the 10 people there, Taco Bell gets 7 votes. But you all go to McDonalds anyway, even though it only got 2 votes. The group, as a whole or as a majority, wanted to go to Taco Bell, but you ended up with McDonalds. Now let's expand this analogy by replacing 10 people with 30 million and replacing the choice of restaurant with the choice of our president in 2017. 48.2% of American voters chose Clinton. 46.1% of Americans chose Trump. Clinton won the popular vote on the national level. And no, there was not any voter fraud. Trump said over and over again that there was voter fraud but he did not present any kind of proof. Source: http://www.cnn.com... The contender has not presented any information that supports the idea of the electoral college being fair.\",\n \"should September 2 be a holiday well you will never find another war like this. i have m made my point so let the voting win\",\n \"Christmas is the most important Christian holiday. Round 1 was supposed to be for acceptance. And because you've agreed to debate the pro side of the argument, you're supposed to be debating FOR Christmas, not New Year's! So, for your past arguments, you've actually been helping me instead of yourself . Happy New Year's everyone!\",\n \"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round \\\"Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else.\\\" Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \\\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\\\" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated \\\"Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters.\\\" But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement \\\"Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!\\\" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.\",\n \"Resolved : The Electoral College should be Removed My opponent's first new objection is that campaign strategy would be different under direct election. I have no problem with this: the new campaign strategy would target voters more efficiently and more thoroughly. Under the current presidential election procedure, a disproportionate amount of money [1] and visitations [2] is spent on \\\"swing states,\\\" when that money should focus on changing votes everywhere. My opponent also tries to defend the electoral college by arguing that the power of the president comes from the states. This contradicts the Declaration of Independence, which originates political power from those it governs. States have no power to coerce their political minorities into counting towards the candidate they didn't choose. My opponent's last new appeal quotes Wikipedia which argues that the Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to minorities to squeak out a majority. This would happen under direct election as well, except at a national, rather than state-specific, scope, and to a larger degree, because the minority would count: not only if added it passed the fifty-percent margin, but all of the time. In the last roud, my opponent did not object to the following arguments: The Winner-Take-All provision misconstrues the votes of the minorities of every state. The Electoral College distorts the vote of individuals based on their location. The Electoral College harms third parties. It isn't enough that the Electoral College system functions. Dictatorships function. Military fascist regimes function. A functioning government that violates its citizens should be corrected. The Electoral College violates the democratic liberties of the citizenry. Therefore, it should be removed. The resolution is negated. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.politico.com... [2] . http://www.fairvote.org...\",\n \"keep Christ in christmas Since my opponent failed to makes any arguments, I extend all previous arguments made and will respond to a comment below. \\\"Our Government does NOT \\\"represent one that has no religious involvement\\\". People often misinterpret the establishment clause to mean \\\"Separation of Church and State\\\", that's not what it does. It simply prevents the Government from mandating a state sponsored religion. It does not prevent the Government from recognizing religion and it's importance to our society, however. In short, it is to protect religion from the Government, not the other way around. And our Government most certainly does celebrate Christmas. Did you receive mail on Dec. 25th? Did public school children have to attend classes that day? No. Why? Because the religious tradition of Christmas is recognized by the Government as a federal holiday.\\\" If the Government is supposed to protect religion, how can it sponsor one certain religion? I have told you the XMAS is a commercial holiday to many, and by Christianizing it, the government will be endorsing a religion. And if it only endorses one religion, it is not protecting the other religions. The Govt. might celebrate a commercial version of XMAS. That's fine. Most people do. It's when the Govt. hangs crosses, manger scenes, and holds prayer that it becomes a religious holiday. This is what would happen if we put Chrsit back into Christmas. We know the Govt. does not do this. Why? Prayer is still banned in schools, nativity scenes are still banned from public property, and crosses are not hanging on govt. buildings.\",\n \"Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the \\\"beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe\\\"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++\\\"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented\\\"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++\\\"His \\\"accomplishments\\\" was nothing more but a failed journey\\\"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse \\\"from sea to shining sea\\\" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates \\\"genocide and imperialism.\\\"++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas The U.S. government favors Christianity over all other religions by recognizing Christmas, a Christian festival, and by mandating a federal holiday on Christmas Day. It does not recognize any other religious holiday in the same way. By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true. Con said: “The Federal Government does not force it's [sic] employees to \\\"celebrate this religious festival\\\". The paid holiday period can…be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion.” Thank goodness! Imagine a state of affairs where citizens were actually driven into churches and forced to pray! You’re right, Heineken. That would be much, much worse. It’s bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow. Con said: “not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays… All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty.” I’m sure you’re right, Heineken, that they don’t stand down the entire military for Christmas, or indeed for any federal holiday. I suppose they keep the essential services running. I don’t really see how that affects the argument, though. Con said: “Pro must show that…mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee.” You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen’s feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. I disagree entirely, and for many reasons that are well outside the scope of this debate. I will only say here that this debate is not about people’s emotions. It is about whether the US government should stop imposing religious observance onto its citizens in the form of the Christmas Day holiday. And yes, it should stop. ------------------ Con said: “The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in [sic] 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay.” This is my favorite of all your arguments, because of the large sums of money involved and because of its ambiguity. What point are you trying to make here? If only there were an extra round, I could ask. As it is, I will take a few guesses at what your argument might be, and rebut them in turn. 1. Christmas day pays for itself. Non-Christians don’t have to subsidize it. Actually, according to your own sources, “holiday sales” mean all sales in November and December and “Holidays during this period include Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa.” http://www.nrf.com...... In fact, there is no information here about how much money in taxes Christmas contributes specifically. In any case, the government encourages non-Christians to give gifts, send cards and put up Christmas trees. To contribute taxes, in other words. So whether it’s though sales or income tax, non-Christians are subsidizing this religious festival. 2. We’re so gloriously rich here in America, what difference does half a billion dollars make? Half a billion dollars is still a substantial amount of money. And it’s the principle of the thing. Citizens can’t choose whether or not to subsidize Christmas Day. The government makes them. 3. Christmas Day makes money for the government. Therefore, the government is right to encourage it. As you convincingly argued elsewhere, Christians aren’t alone in having gift-giving festivals. The government doesn’t need to mandate a federal holiday to rake in the benefits of religion. In any case, this is a distressingly cynical line to take. Surely religious freedom and equality are worth more than a seasonal rise in retail sales? ------------------ Con said: “The Jewish Holiday of Purim…Hanukkah…Eids…Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities.” So true. So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can’t Christmas be like that too? Con said: “The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact… 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday.” I’m sure you’re right, Heineken. Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. ------------------ Con said: “ I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation…This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists.” I’m sorry. I did put the US government link in, but you had to find it on the list of links at the bottom, click on it, then scroll down to find the right bit. I should have just put in the quote directly. Here it is. “Christmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans.” http://www.usa.gov... What’s a “straw man argument”? It sounds bad, almost as if you’re accusing me of making things up. But I’ve included sources all along. Con said: “It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance.” Ah. So that’s the difference between a “national holiday” and a “federal holiday”. Thanks. That’s really interesting. Conclusion There are eleven federal holidays in the US. Only one of these, Christmas Day, is a religious festival. The government has no business showing such respect and preference to Christianity. The US prides itself on being a country of religious freedom. Federal holidays, which are compulsory holidays for all federal employees (in non-essential services), and which are subsidized by US tax-payers, should be secular and inclusive. Christmas Day should be celebrated by Christians in a private manner, just as people of other beliefs celebrate their own festivals.\",\n \"Republicans vs. Democrats; Political FIGHT Holiday by green day is a good song...\",\n \"If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well org. The First Amendment was established to not only protect an individual's right to practice the religion of their choice, but to also protect that individual from [the religions] of others. It also sought to establish a boundary as to where no religions could be created by, and for, our government. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was designed to extend the understanding and capability of that protection by limiting the ability of the government to not only create religion, but promote one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. \\\"The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. \\\" From <. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...; \\\"In Lynch v. Donnelly, the U. S. Supreme Court considered whether the inclusion of a crèche in a municipality's Christmas display was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case involved the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which owned a crèche and included it as part of an overall, elaborate Christmas display on the grounds of a park owned by a non-profit. The city's display included a depiction of Santa, reindeer, a Christmas tree, carolers, cut out figurines, and candy-stripes poles, in addition to the nativity scene. \\\" From <. http://ffrf.org...; The Court deemed the crèche, or manger was unconstitutional as it favored Christianity over other religions in a display. As a precedent to my arguments, The application of separation and establishment had to be made. This example of separation depicts a certain amount of irony, as the holiday season (aside from the meaning of the actual word holiday) itself promotes religion, whether a particular religion, or religion itself. According to 5 U. S. Code § 6103 - Holidays From <. https://www.law.cornell.edu...; \\\"The following are legal public holidays: New Year’s Day, January 1. Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. , the third Monday in January. Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February. Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. Independence Day, July 4. Labor Day, the first Monday in September. Columbus Day, the second Monday in October. Veterans Day, November 11. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November. Christmas Day, December 25. \\\" These dates and terms were confirmed at <. http://www.archives.gov...> . \\\"Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is Federal policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law. \\\" From <. http://www.archives.gov...; The creation of these dates and names, especially Christmas Day, into law, is a direct violation of the establishment clause. Partially in the term holiday, originally crafted from the word holy, and day Though it has been accepted later in history to also mean a vacation or celebration unrelated to religion, it shares meaning with religious connotation, not excluding it. Wholly, however, in the Definition of Christmas, previously established as a Christian holiday. From <. http://dictionary.reference.com...; As the correlation of legal precedence and religious connotation associated with the aforementioned dates has been established, it is reasonable to conclude that the policy regarding endorsement of religious activities is not extended to the benefits encouraged by the government in the form of the new definition of holiday.\",\n \"U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. https://quizlet.com... . http://www.usnews.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.\",\n \"If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well org. As Stated in round 1, the definitions of Christmas and benefit were established. It was established in round 2 that the government of the United States has established holidays, with legally confirmed named and regards. Round 3 affirmed that the First Amendment established freedoms from a government ability to promote a religious attribute over non religion. The logical conclusion to the dictation of these events is that the government endorses a holiday (benefit) in the name of Christmas (Religious), despite the establishment clause's disassociation. Thank you for participating in this debate period, and have a Merry Christmas!\",\n \"All Citizens should be required to vote We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.\",\n \"Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.\",\n \"\\\"should voting be done online\\\" Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don\",\n \"The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move. Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.\",\n \"U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.\",\n \"If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well The first amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1] It is the right of the people to publicly practice their religion. Publicly. The fourteenth amendment extends these rights to equally apply to corporations as legal person hoods. [2] The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice. Holidays have an economic impact on businesses. By recognizing the source of these demands it behooves the federal government to utilize such observances for the benefit of economic growth. If the government made strides to eliminate the inclusion of holiday customs into their public persona, we risk killing the demand it generates. Seeing how the government can not create religious days, it only stands to utilize the days already commonly used by the populace. So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision. [3] That the recognition of Christmas as a holiday, a custom practiced by the people, was not against the establishment clause. Government institutions were not establishing the practice, just recognizing it's prevalence. As such the name Christmas, was not elected by government either. Christmas was being called Christmas 4 centuries before the U.S. was created. It is only the name by which the holiday is known by. Christmas with the use of trees, Santa, reindeer, and present exchanges is a modern amalgamation of corporate advertisement, additions by different populations. To an outside observer Christmas as represented in media, even government accolades, would appear to be a very non-christian holiday. Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://www.becketfund.org...\",\n \"Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.\",\n \"hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns\",\n \"should September 2 be a holiday I have to admit, I burst out laughing when I saw PRO's response. This is going to be good:Rebuttals1: 'well you will never find another war like this. 'So what? You will never find any other war that is akin to the War of 1812, or the Afghanistan War for that matter. Just because you will never find a war like that doesn't make it any more deserving of honor than any other war. It also doesn't change the fact that many other people died in many other wars. 2: 'i have m made my point so let the voting win'Are you kidding me? I'm going to put some of my answer in bold because 'I want to make my point:''well you will never find another war like this. 'The above text is what PRO said. After I successfully rebutted all of his/her arguments, all (s)he could come up with was 'you will never find another war like this guys. Vote PRO! ' You never made your point in this debate. I refuted everything, you refuted nothing. ConclusionI successfully refuted all of PRO's arguments, and PRO refuted nothing. In fact, all (s)he said was: 'Alright, you have a point,' to my arguments. Making September 2nd a holiday would be unfair to the many who died in other wars, as they don't get the honor and respect that the people involved in World War II do. We already honor everybody who were involved in wars: the holiday takes place on November 11 and it is called Remembrance/Veteran's Day. People will not learn from their mistakes if September 2nd is a holiday, because humans have been at war for thousands of years and nothing is going to change. All of my arguments are left uncontested.\",\n \"Christmas should be cancelled Public holidays relating to the Christian faith such as Christmas Day should be scrapped for the following reasons: 1 – The vast majority of people in the West do not practice Christianity: the United States has the highest number of churchgoers for a developed nation at 25%, whereas in Northern European countries church attendance ranges between 3-12 %. Why then is a celebration associated with a religious minority foisted upon the entire nation? [1] 2 – As businesses shut down for Christmas Day the lost productivity costs industry trillions of dollars: the GDP of the European Union and the United States alone is USD30,533,747 million which means that Christmas costs US and EU firms $83.65 trillion dollars every year. [2] 3 – Shopping for Christmas presents is not only enormously stressful but parents are encouraged by advertisers and through peer pressure to spend more than they can afford on gifts for their children: 52% of families with low and middle incomes turn to high interest debt to cover the cost of Christmas; money that would be better spent on their children's health and education. [3] So come on, it's not too late to cancel Christmas this year: tell all your friends and family that you are not buying into the whole Christmas malarky; lobby your political representative to have the Christmas public holiday withdrawn and, of course, vote Pro! Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...\",\n \"British Columbia's Family Day Should Be Moved to Match the Rest of Canada's Con asserts that Family Day is stupid. However, Family Day allows Canada to have a holiday that lines up with President's Day in the United States. (1) This is useful due to closeness of Canada & the US's border, economic ties, etc. For example, before Canada had Family Day, the TSX and other Canadian markets would be open while New York and other American markets are closed. This is also inconvenient because while earlier in the month when most Canadians and Americans are working, those in BC will have to catch up to their colleagues out of the province. (2) Therefore, BC should move Family Day to match the rest of Canada's. 1-http://en.wikipedia.org...(Canada) 2-http://www.cbc.ca...\",\n \"hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations\",\n \"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state \\\"If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests.\\\" What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply \\\"Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws.\\\" I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state \\\"Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day.\\\" You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state \\\"Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote.\\\" You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state \\\"The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work.\\\" This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state \\\"If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting.\\\" Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state \\\"Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional.\\\" It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.\",\n \"The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro established that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.”Pro wrote an additional paragraph about holiday observance in the southern hemisphere, but he immediately withdrew the argument. Pro established a burden without cause. We still do not know “why” the Government should remove itself from Holiday observance. Therefore, I will turn it over to Pro. Hopefully we will see a case presented in round two.\",\n \"Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. May the Fourth be with you! The impact that George Lucas's franchise has had on our culture cannot be overstated. Even while they complain about the changes being made to these movies, and about The Phantom Menace, fans have made this one of the most, if not the most, commercially successful franchises in history. This cannot help having an impact on culture. Moral values have been influenced by Luke Skywalker and Yoda. \\\"He joined the Dark Side\\\" has become synonymous with doing something evil. Star Wars changed our culture. I believe that May 4th should be a national holiday. Not a major one like Christmas, but just something recognized by everyone as a tradition. Maybe a few banks can close.\",\n \"Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D\",\n \"Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Heck to the yeah. First of all, it's awesome to be able to debate Imabench. Reading his debate are never boring, so I know this will be fun. Second, I am legitimately opposed to celebrating one gender and leaving the others high and dry. I look forward this!\",\n \"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.\",\n \"Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.\",\n \"The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Hello Heineken. Thanks for accepting this debate. Christmas Day is a holiday under federal law in the United States. On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so. Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars (1). Thus, every tax payer, irrespective of her private religious beliefs, is being forced to subsidize this Christian festival. No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar. The US government has tried, and failed, to excuse this appalling unfairness with the following argument (2), which I’ll paraphrase here: Christmas is a Christian festival, but Non-Christians can join in the activities, so Forcing them to subsidize a Christian festival is a legitimate government activity. The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate “even for” non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up “Christmas” trees Giving gifts Sending greeting cards If the aim is inclusiveness, why not have a government-sponsored solstice celebration on December 19? All those activities for non-Christians would still apply. Then, six days later, anyone who wants to can celebrate the birth of Jesus privately. But why would anyone want to? Not even Christians are pretending that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (3). The winter solstice celebration was hijacked hundreds of years ago. It needs to be returned to the people. However. This idea about winter solstice is just my own suggestion to improve the lives of millions of Americans. There are many other options. Government interference in the “Christmas” festival could be cancelled with no replacement holiday, for example, or the New Year celebrations could be lengthened. The important thing is that the government does not force non-Christians to observe a Christian religious day (by not being allowed to work), and does not force any American to subsidize a Christian religious festival (by using taxes to pay federal employees for the day of observance). The US Department of State claims that religious freedom is a “core objective of U.S. foreign policy” (4). Maybe start at home. The government needs to stop pushing Christmas onto its citizens. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. http://www.usa.gov... 3. http://www.christiananswers.net... 4. http://www.state.gov...\",\n \"Potato day should be a national holiday for all places I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't\",\n \"Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\",\n \"Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections I understand that my opponent was probably celebrating the holidays, so I extend all arguments.\",\n \"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \\\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. \\\" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.\",\n \"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.\",\n \"Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":43,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should the penny stay in circulation?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["In the US, pennies should be abolished.\nAs part of its new budget, Canada will get rid of its penny, saving taxpayers more than C$11 million, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since production in 1908, the bank has produced more than 35 billion pennies, but circulation will end sometime in 2012. As part of cost cutting measures, Canada will save at least C$150 million in production and handling costs once the penny is completely abolished. It costs the Canadian government C1.6 cents to mint a penny, a coin made from copper-plated zinc and copper-plated steel. However, it won't only be the government that saves money. Banks Pay Saving pennies in a piggy bank may be fun for children, but for banks, the transportation, handling and storage of coins costs about C$20 million each year according to Canadian officials, a cost that has to be passed on to customers in the form of fees. Eliminating the penny saves a portion of the costs associated with processing coins. More Efficient Some argue that cash registers will have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the switch, but since the penny will remain in circulation until most pennies are out of circulation and taxes will continue to be calculated to the penny, cash registers and other business machines will operate as they always have. Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that businesses welcome the change, since fewer coins will eventually make their business more efficient. Other Countries Have Done It Canada is one of many countries that have ended the minting of their lowest-value coins. In 1992, Australia eliminated their one- and two-cent coins from circulation. In January 2008, Israel eliminated their five agorot coin. These countries join at least 15 other countries including Great Britain, The Philippines, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore and Mexico that have all eliminated at least one of their coins to lower government costs. When Will the United States Do It? The most notable hold out is the United States. In 2006, The Legal Tender Modernization Act was introduced by Representative Jim Kolbe. The bill aimed to require that all transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents but this legislation failed to pass Congress leaving the U.S. with the same problem as Canada. Producing the penny in the U.S. costs a lot more than in Canada, according to CNN. To produce a U.S. penny, the U.S. Mint pays 2.4 cents per penny, and that's up from 1.5 cents in 2006. That, along with the production of the nickel, costs the U.S. government more than $100 billion each year, and if it can't be retired, President Obama wants the cost reduced. That, according to officials, is difficult, because the administrative costs of producing a penny account for nearly half a cent, leaving very little room to cover the cost of raw materials.[1] [1]http://www.investopedia.com... My old arguments. Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1.","The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service\nAnother reason I didn't feel the need to formally reply is you did not cite where your facts where from (in round two), or in this case when! You scrutinize me for using estimates from 2011, but your source here was from 1990. . http://www.pennies.org...This is why consumers and merchants, one average, wouldn't lose money let alone $600 million:A merchant owns a store, A person wants to buy a few items where the total comes to $11.05 the sales tax is 7.5%. After sales tax The amount due is $11.88, making the cash due $11.90. With this scenario the merchant gains 2 pennies wow! The same merchant owns the same store. a person buys a few items totalling $11.93 the sales tax is 7.5%. This makes the total $12.82, or cash due $12.80. Oh no, the merchant lost 2 pennies, glad he gained two before so it equals out! Minting CostSorry about the outdated info, that was my bad. I will point out that it is still costing more to make a penny then it is worth, my point is still valid. No it is not on the decline as you have assumed your own source you deemed viable said:\"A new report shows the cost to produce a penny was 1.7 cents in the 2014 fiscal year. That’s down from 2.4 cents in 2011 but still more than face value. And that won’t change\" . http://blogs.wsj.com... The stock on zinc (not copper as pennies are primarily zinc) has risen in the last five years and is currently rising. . https://www.google.com... How do you think that the pennies usefulness outweighs its cost? Charities It looks like you are the one dancing to this one. First my statement can be proved and is not contradictory. The quote was: \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel (5-1)\" The meaning was clear, a nickel is worth five pennies, a donation of one nickel will always beat a donation of four pennies. (proof) You on the other hand have no proof, You again assume that people will not donate nickel's or will be stingy. As I outlined in round two assumptions like this make charitable people look bad. Australia is another country who abolished the penny way back in 1992. The charitable donations still rose even though they has no pennies to give. . http://www.jbwere.com.au... I am Canadian I believe that I have the right to use the international experiences of the loss of the penny in a debate. Using countries comparable to the USA is is a great way to estimate what will happen to the economy after the abolishing. I do know that the Canadian economy is not the exact same. I also know my fair share about the American economy. The reason I do not compare America to America is because no matter which America you compare it to they still have their penny. Furthermore I have only given examples of my own experiences with the penny being abolished effect on commerce (I can use other Canadian or Australian examples if you wish) and gave an idea for charities. I did use other arguments outside of Canada. Burden As stated I believe this burden is the instigators. You have only given ONE clear argument which was refuted twice. In reply to your points they can be tackled quite easy to what I have said earlier and what is assumed when starting a debate: 1) Removing the penny is justified: It costs too much to make and is not worth it. What other follow through do you need? 2) Will not harm the economy: I have stated that it will help the economy by decreasing debt and will not do any harm with a complete rounding system. 3) The plan to phase out pennies: oh I assumed you knew, it is your argument. Getting rid of pennies will be done the only way that makes sense, phasing them out from circulation. Here is the normal process used by Australia and Canada (Yes, most likely USA): Stop minting the penny (the process of making the penny), merchants will stop giving out pennies as change but will accept them for a period of time, (if you have exact change as a customer you don't round up or down), the banks end up with the pennies and then they are re-purposed by the government. The only other way to take pennies out of the system is to make pennies worthless, not legal tender. This wont happen for obvious reasons. Other arguments to refute: Pennies are a waste of time and time is money. Many people don't bother to take their pennies as change let alone spend them in stores. The people that do spend pennies end up wasting everyone time. \"National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreen's drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction. Assume that the average citizen makes one such transaction every day, and so wastes (to be conservative) 730 seconds a year. The median worker earns just over $36,000 a year, or about 0.5 cents per second, so futzing with pennies costs him $3.65 annually. \" . http://www.washingtonpost.com... This estimate does not include the time wasted from picking up found pennies, the cashier or business time wasted by customers counting pennies, the cashiers time wasted by counting pennies at end of shift, rolling your pennies because you have so many, and taking pennies to the bank to be changed. Pennies are not accepted for all purchases. Electronic transactions are becoming more and more common and the penny is becoming less useful in that respect. Vending machines, phone booths, toll booths, and parking meters are some examples of electronic merchants that do not accept pennies. Pennies are bad for the environment. It is no secret that many pennies end up just dropped, you can find them on the streets and in the sewers. Unlike that banana peel rotting on someone's lawn pennies do not biodegrade efficiently. What is worse for the environment are the mines, Specifically zinc mines (Pennies are made of very little copper) \"Red Dog Mine, which is the largest zinc mine in the U. S. is by far the #1 polluter on the EPA's list, because of large quantities of heavy-metal and lead rich mining tailing's. The process of refining both metals can release sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead and zinc into the environment. \" . http://www.treehugger.com... In conclusion, It is obvious that taking out the penny will result in a better future for the USA, financial and otherwise. Because of Con's constant assumptions, a single outdated, uneducated argument, and inability to create a rebuttal it is clear that Pro is the front runner in this debate. Thank you for reading this and Con, Good Luck.","Should the U.S. keep the penny\nGetting rid of the penny would actually be beneficial because prostitutes would lower their prices by a nickel to get exact change.","The penny should be stopped from circulation\nAlright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000\" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...","The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.\nToday, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated. In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that \"the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History.\" The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, \"the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system.\" He also claimed that the statement that the \"'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them. The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, \"two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article \"Penny Pinchers\" for The Globe, \"the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year.\" not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be \"important to our pricing system.\" Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them. As William Saffire comically remarked, \" the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle\" The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy. On the flip side, \"Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59.\" (William Saffire) *shakes head*","Should the U.S. keep the penny\nThis argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things.","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished\nYou make a good point but why should it be abolished Abe must stay here are some reason's first it would be disrespectful to deface a Hero of this proud country its like getting rid of the flag.... The penny might be the lowest form of currency you can have but its still currency getting rid of currency might not go so well what if you need exact change but that's not the point defacing a President is down right disrespect and a great one at that a true American hero but when it comes to the digital age where there are just credit cards and debit cards and bit coins I don't mean today I mean in 50 years where there is only digital things I still want to dig into my pocket and find a nice shinny Abe and remember how far we have come.","The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.\n\"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies\" If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, \"$10,000 for maintenance(annually)\"{2} a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation. {3} The past renovation cost us approximately \"$15 million dollars\" {2} With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. . \"Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \" This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value. \"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. \" My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \"Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. \" This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \"ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. \" If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim} \"Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. \" If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general. \"My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. \" A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability. Sources: {1}. http://www.debate.org... {2}. http://www.lighthousefriends.com... {3}. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {4}. http://www.nytimes.com...","The penny should be stopped from circulation\nYou did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.","The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)\nOk, I am balancing many things right now, so this won't be as high a quality as I would like due to time and spread of mental power issues, but here it goes. Also, before I start, I am A) sorry for the gender mix-up; won happen again :). If my jesting comments concerning the biasness of the Pro's source seemed to be insulting, I am sorry. The internet is terrible at conveying emotions and the comments were not meant to be harsh. CP- I am kicking it. I did not state it was unconditional nor did my opponent hold me to that burden. The only offensive arguments Con could get off the counter-plan would be in a \"abuse is a voter\" sort of package, which my opponent did not do, ergo the kick is not abusive. However, I will respond to the abuse arguments anyway. \"This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \"picking a random metal\" is just a cop-out.\" As I stated, I believed the general counterplan would be better for the affirmative, thus I did not specify, just as a CX team does not specify who would propose their plan in Congress to pass it. However, the fact is, which my opponent conceded, THE COMMENTS SECTION CHECKS ABUSE. Just as in real life debate where cross-examination time checks clarification abuses, my opponent had 3 DAYS before her first round was posted to ask me to specify my counterplan, which I would have gladly done. At the point where she does not ask this, it is her fault and not mine, thus negating any possible offense one might give my opponent even though the CP is kicked. Note: Kicking the counterplan is not a reason to vote Pro. I am simply cleaning up the debate a bit and highlighting the important issues, rather than go for a counterplan that for the Pro is at best a wash. _________ Pro Case: _________ 1A Consumer Confidence: 1. If there is not burden for the Minister to say something along the lines of \"definitely\", then the fact that he did not is not a reason to discredit the card. Note that no evidence has been brought up to actually counter the card 2. Ok, just because KFC getting rid of mashed potatoes and the Double Down would harm sales like getting rid of green beans would does not mean that the harms of getting rid of green beans disappear. The offense still stands; it merely applies to other coins as well as pennies 3. Yes, the quotation itself does not fully track the bad effects to their eventual ends. That's why there is my analysis in round 1 that shows that the lowering of consumer confidence would be detrimental to the economy, analysis that was dropped in Round 2 and thus cannot be brought up in Round 3 by the Pro. 1B Cheaper than other transactions. I don't ignore the analysis made by the Pro. Rather I show how the \"cost\" would be insignificant if the calculations were true, in that the next cheapest form of payment would cost 4X as much, and also questions the validity of the calculations itself, which if were true, would cause so much harm that our economy would be in shambles. The offense in this contention is based on the source in this round that has been questioned and once I show that the source is not valid, the offense here falls. NACS 1. Yes, a website in support of eliminating the penny states that the NACS and Walgreens state statistics that support their side. As I stated, that is a HUGE ground for bias. I'm not calling any one a liar, please don't get that vibe, but not only have I searched the Walgreens and NACS sites myself for such statistics, but I have asked my opponent to provide the cites as well. At the point where I have called out my opponent's evidence and she has refused to provide the cite for it, WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT AS VALID. Therefore, ALL of my opponent's offense in her case, with the exception of the China contention, which I will get to, falls as it is based on this source and supposed waste of time. 2. Again, I am not calling anyone a liar, but at the point where you refuse to provide the cites to the supposed statements, the source cannot be accepted as valid. Also, what does physics have to do with economics? Contention 2 CP is dropped does not matter Brightline: Again, I don't know if it is a misunderstanding, but my opponent does not give an adequate answer. My opponent states the problem of debt, BUT NEVER SAYS HOW PASSING THE RESOLUTION FIXES THE PROBLEM. If we need to save 50 dollars and the plan saves 40, the problem can't be used as a reason to pass the plan as the problem is not solved. Conversely, if the plan saves 60 dollars, the impact is valid. My opponent fails to show how voting affirmative would solve the problem thus the contention must be ignored. Human Rights 1. China is in a much greater entrenchment of communism than the examples, thus it makes sense, it would not be an immediate affect, but a slower one. My opponent doesn't attack the link, but says its not acting fast enough, which is not really an attack 2. First, as the CATO article shows, by trading with them we are ENDING the abuses. Thus, the ethical issues are treated, though not in the way my opponent apparently wants to go. Secondly, crossapply the article from the first round. The US has its own human rights abuses and China has rightly called us out on them. We need to fix these before we take any comprehensive action on China. Neg Case Con.1 Extend the 600 million a year rounding tax; this goes dropped through out the round. Con. 2 1. First, this contention deals with LONG TERM IMPACTS. So, this does not apply, in fact this does not apply to any of my offense so it can just be ignored 2. Um, my opponent never said that inflation was a wash, and if she did, I would like her to explain the Great Depression or Zimbabwae. Extend the extreme inflation that the government would go under due to passing the aff's plan 3. The inflation on one item would not be small. However, as I have stated, the OVERALL impact would be huge Con 3. The point of the tax IS this raise; that is what the \"tax\" is comprised of. The fact is, there are a disproportionate items labled .5 and up as compared to lower, thus more items are going to be higher than lower, creating the tax. Extend the harm that stores lose 30% of their profit by the passing of the aff's plan 2 and 3 Extend that the 2-2.5 source is not valid Theft 1. Ok, so then the rise and fall of electronic purchases is a wash, STILL leading to my harms of theft. 2. As I stated in round 1, the danger is dealing with whether the employee has to use the cash register. If an item was $3.00 exactly, it is rather easy for the consumer to simply pull out three ones. At that point, the employee can simply bid them a good day and pocket the money, as there is no proof of the transaction as the register remains closed. This is MUCH less likely if the cost is say 3.47. As all the Neg offense still stands in this round and all of the Pro's offense that was not based on a source that has not been shown to be valid does not have a bright-line and thus no proof of solvency, I must urge a vote in negation.","The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.\nPennies should be retired because they are practically worthless and cost more to produce than they are actually worth. Over time, pennies have been losing value. Today, there is not much you can buy with a single penny. You may say that you can add them together to get worth, but that takes finding 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and time. A single penny costs 1.7 cents, while only being worth 1 cent, so every penny produced costs the U.S. government 0.7 cents. So about every 143 pennies, the government is losing a dollar. That is just a waste of money and is easily preventable.","The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.\n\"It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further. \"In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. \" \"My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \" Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \" Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy. \"[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory. \"If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. \"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \"This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \" >\"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase\"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \"If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. \"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. Evidence for the JC PENNY claim: >($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. My opponent misunderstood my claim that \"$7.02 as $6.98\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary? Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum. I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas. Sources:[1] . http://www.tpk.govt.nz... [2] . http://moneyrelease.com...","The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)\nThanks for the great debate, Con! :) Pro Case --------------- Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I wasn't placing a \"definitely will\" burden of proof on said finance minister. However, the quotation itself shows little reason to believe that discarding the penny will lead to imminent downfall of the economy. Furthermore, most of the harms that the Minister cites have to do with not minting low denomination coins, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's harms come from all coins. Counterplan: 1. My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination. 2. Cost stats still stand. See later responses. On Abuse: 1. This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \"picking a random metal\" is just a cop-out. 2. My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1] Imagine how much worse the harms are at the point where we accept the counterplan. Though my opponent asserts he has a source stating otherwise, even his own source indicates that aluminum is more expensive than zinc (.9369 cash value to .9276 cash value right now). 3. The US aluminum market is incredibly unhealthy. Aluminum exports alone have tanked 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2] Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Furthermore, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3] Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper 1. Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do. 2. Until my opponent addresses my analysis on cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended. Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum. NACS: 1. Search where I told you to, please. First RD 1 source, CTRL F, \"Walgreens.\" It's there. I promise. 2. Call B.S. all you want, but that website is just as reliable as any other source in the debate, including your CATO Institute and the blog citations. The man who maintains this website, Jeff Gore, is a physicist at M.I.T. That does give him some sort of professional, academic credibility, don't you think? However, if it'll make my opponent happy, I will email Jeff and ask him for his citation. Pro Contention 2 Cross-Application of Counterplan: 1. Apply all three of my abuse responses to the aluminum counterplan. Fail plan. 2. I'm a she. 3. Doesn't matter how much time I had. This is like waiting until cross-examination to read plan text. It isn't my job to coax his full plan out of him. He made it—he should state it up front. Brightline: My argument is that we already aren't acting freely, but no, I can't fix a $ amount to this. Foreign politics doesn't boil down to solely mathematics, and to expect that of me is downright silly. I do, however, prove conclusively that we are greatly indebted to China, which will in turn affect our foreign policy decisions with regards to not only China, but a number of other key countries. This goes unrefuted. Human Rights: 1. As the CATO Institute author readily admits, \"Although market reforms do not guarantee greater respect for human rights, economic prosperity brought increased pressure for democracy in such countries as South Korea and Taiwan.\" South Korea and Taiwan cannot possibly be compared to China, who, as my opponent mentions, is responding to capitalist expansion into their markets poorly. If this gentleman from the CATO Institute was correct, then the Great Firewall should have been down by now. China has the manpower to lead production, and their economic ascendancy shows this. Encouraging freer trade with such a nation does nothing but entrench their buying and selling power, which in turn encourages the Chinese government to strengthen itself and shirk off the criticisms and actions laid down against it by the likes of the U.S., who are too tied to it to act. 2. My opponent's responses, and the CATO Institute article, conveniently ignore ethical concerns surrounding the issue. By funding such a country, in which the government routinely abuses human rights, we are implicitly compromising our own ideals as a nation by supporting these actions. ---------------- Neg Case ---------------- Neg Contention 1: All my opponent did was re-assert that I can't prove any of my cost stats. That's based on a lack of acknowledgement of most of the sources I used in RD 1 and a challenge of legitimacy to the first source in RD 1. Neg Contention 2: On #1: 1. I don't immediately eliminate the penny. They'd most likely remain in circulation for a while. Immediate harms cannot be accessed by my opponent, which I pointed out in my last response. 2. Extend what I said about inflation being a wash. It still is, no matter how many times my opponent repeats himself. On #2 1. This doesn't answer the response I gave. Lombra is very specific about inflationary impact of the rounding tax. What he says afterwards is that those impacts might cumulate over time, and then cites his \"$2 billion in spending by 2010\" estimate. He doesn't say anything about individual items…? Neg Contention 3: On #1: The price stays raised to cover your rounding tax each year. I don't get why this negates what I said, which is that the tax would only need to make up the 30% profit lost of a 6-7 cent net profit. Even if we assume the worst, an item will never go up more than 2 cents in cost. We only need to aim for the closest \"5\" or \"0\" in a price (i.e. $2.99 is rounded to $3.00, while $2.97 becomes $2.95). On #2: Though the financial implications still remain, I typo'd on cents vs. seconds. My bad. I won't concede the financial impacts of the rounding tax, but I will advocate that you disregard what I said about 2-2.5 cents in the last RD. On #3: My sources are perfectly adequate. On #4 (Theft): 1. My opponent's source only deals in credit cards, not debit cards. Moreover, food stamps are now entirely electronic, though I don't know how much of the transaction market they monopolize (I do know that 19 million people participate in food stamp programs in the US). Debit card transactions in the US are on the rise [4], so I still don't bite those harms to the point of voting against my position. 2. I also asserted that, because the likelihood of carrying all other change vs. the penny has not been properly established, and because I'm not eliminated the use of all coins, the harms won't come to fruition. I don't stop merchants from making totals that require exact change. My opponent hasn't warranted how pricing something at $2.47 is inherently less dangerous than pricing it at $2.45. [1]http://www.infomine.com... [2]http://www.aluminum.org... [3]http://www.aluminum.org... [4] http://www.jsnet.org...","The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)\nThanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :) ============= Pro Case: ============= Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce. 2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro \"might\" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios. Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan 1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources. 2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material. 3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace \"China\" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague. Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper 1. Cheaper than what? 2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions. Pro Contention 1B: NACS \"Report\" 1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place. 2. Never claimed it was a report. 3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL \"F\" Walgreen. Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan 1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material. Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency 1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't. Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights 1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China. =============== Neg Case: =============== Neg Contention1: 1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said \"paid by each consumer,\" as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money. Neg Contention 2: 1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash. 2. The author of his source admits that \"the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small.\" Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy. Neg Contention 3: 1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it? 2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss. 3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro. 4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together—just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://useconomy.about.com...","We should get rid of the penny\nPoll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. \"These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America.\" said Weller. \"Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned.\" The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. \"Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want,\" said Weller. \"It's just common cents.\" Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;"],"string":"[\n \"In the US, pennies should be abolished.\\nAs part of its new budget, Canada will get rid of its penny, saving taxpayers more than C$11 million, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since production in 1908, the bank has produced more than 35 billion pennies, but circulation will end sometime in 2012. As part of cost cutting measures, Canada will save at least C$150 million in production and handling costs once the penny is completely abolished. It costs the Canadian government C1.6 cents to mint a penny, a coin made from copper-plated zinc and copper-plated steel. However, it won't only be the government that saves money. Banks Pay Saving pennies in a piggy bank may be fun for children, but for banks, the transportation, handling and storage of coins costs about C$20 million each year according to Canadian officials, a cost that has to be passed on to customers in the form of fees. Eliminating the penny saves a portion of the costs associated with processing coins. More Efficient Some argue that cash registers will have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the switch, but since the penny will remain in circulation until most pennies are out of circulation and taxes will continue to be calculated to the penny, cash registers and other business machines will operate as they always have. Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that businesses welcome the change, since fewer coins will eventually make their business more efficient. Other Countries Have Done It Canada is one of many countries that have ended the minting of their lowest-value coins. In 1992, Australia eliminated their one- and two-cent coins from circulation. In January 2008, Israel eliminated their five agorot coin. These countries join at least 15 other countries including Great Britain, The Philippines, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore and Mexico that have all eliminated at least one of their coins to lower government costs. When Will the United States Do It? The most notable hold out is the United States. In 2006, The Legal Tender Modernization Act was introduced by Representative Jim Kolbe. The bill aimed to require that all transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents but this legislation failed to pass Congress leaving the U.S. with the same problem as Canada. Producing the penny in the U.S. costs a lot more than in Canada, according to CNN. To produce a U.S. penny, the U.S. Mint pays 2.4 cents per penny, and that's up from 1.5 cents in 2006. That, along with the production of the nickel, costs the U.S. government more than $100 billion each year, and if it can't be retired, President Obama wants the cost reduced. That, according to officials, is difficult, because the administrative costs of producing a penny account for nearly half a cent, leaving very little room to cover the cost of raw materials.[1] [1]http://www.investopedia.com... My old arguments. Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1.\",\n \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service\\nAnother reason I didn't feel the need to formally reply is you did not cite where your facts where from (in round two), or in this case when! You scrutinize me for using estimates from 2011, but your source here was from 1990. . http://www.pennies.org...This is why consumers and merchants, one average, wouldn't lose money let alone $600 million:A merchant owns a store, A person wants to buy a few items where the total comes to $11.05 the sales tax is 7.5%. After sales tax The amount due is $11.88, making the cash due $11.90. With this scenario the merchant gains 2 pennies wow! The same merchant owns the same store. a person buys a few items totalling $11.93 the sales tax is 7.5%. This makes the total $12.82, or cash due $12.80. Oh no, the merchant lost 2 pennies, glad he gained two before so it equals out! Minting CostSorry about the outdated info, that was my bad. I will point out that it is still costing more to make a penny then it is worth, my point is still valid. No it is not on the decline as you have assumed your own source you deemed viable said:\\\"A new report shows the cost to produce a penny was 1.7 cents in the 2014 fiscal year. That’s down from 2.4 cents in 2011 but still more than face value. And that won’t change\\\" . http://blogs.wsj.com... The stock on zinc (not copper as pennies are primarily zinc) has risen in the last five years and is currently rising. . https://www.google.com... How do you think that the pennies usefulness outweighs its cost? Charities It looks like you are the one dancing to this one. First my statement can be proved and is not contradictory. The quote was: \\\"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel (5-1)\\\" The meaning was clear, a nickel is worth five pennies, a donation of one nickel will always beat a donation of four pennies. (proof) You on the other hand have no proof, You again assume that people will not donate nickel's or will be stingy. As I outlined in round two assumptions like this make charitable people look bad. Australia is another country who abolished the penny way back in 1992. The charitable donations still rose even though they has no pennies to give. . http://www.jbwere.com.au... I am Canadian I believe that I have the right to use the international experiences of the loss of the penny in a debate. Using countries comparable to the USA is is a great way to estimate what will happen to the economy after the abolishing. I do know that the Canadian economy is not the exact same. I also know my fair share about the American economy. The reason I do not compare America to America is because no matter which America you compare it to they still have their penny. Furthermore I have only given examples of my own experiences with the penny being abolished effect on commerce (I can use other Canadian or Australian examples if you wish) and gave an idea for charities. I did use other arguments outside of Canada. Burden As stated I believe this burden is the instigators. You have only given ONE clear argument which was refuted twice. In reply to your points they can be tackled quite easy to what I have said earlier and what is assumed when starting a debate: 1) Removing the penny is justified: It costs too much to make and is not worth it. What other follow through do you need? 2) Will not harm the economy: I have stated that it will help the economy by decreasing debt and will not do any harm with a complete rounding system. 3) The plan to phase out pennies: oh I assumed you knew, it is your argument. Getting rid of pennies will be done the only way that makes sense, phasing them out from circulation. Here is the normal process used by Australia and Canada (Yes, most likely USA): Stop minting the penny (the process of making the penny), merchants will stop giving out pennies as change but will accept them for a period of time, (if you have exact change as a customer you don't round up or down), the banks end up with the pennies and then they are re-purposed by the government. The only other way to take pennies out of the system is to make pennies worthless, not legal tender. This wont happen for obvious reasons. Other arguments to refute: Pennies are a waste of time and time is money. Many people don't bother to take their pennies as change let alone spend them in stores. The people that do spend pennies end up wasting everyone time. \\\"National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreen's drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction. Assume that the average citizen makes one such transaction every day, and so wastes (to be conservative) 730 seconds a year. The median worker earns just over $36,000 a year, or about 0.5 cents per second, so futzing with pennies costs him $3.65 annually. \\\" . http://www.washingtonpost.com... This estimate does not include the time wasted from picking up found pennies, the cashier or business time wasted by customers counting pennies, the cashiers time wasted by counting pennies at end of shift, rolling your pennies because you have so many, and taking pennies to the bank to be changed. Pennies are not accepted for all purchases. Electronic transactions are becoming more and more common and the penny is becoming less useful in that respect. Vending machines, phone booths, toll booths, and parking meters are some examples of electronic merchants that do not accept pennies. Pennies are bad for the environment. It is no secret that many pennies end up just dropped, you can find them on the streets and in the sewers. Unlike that banana peel rotting on someone's lawn pennies do not biodegrade efficiently. What is worse for the environment are the mines, Specifically zinc mines (Pennies are made of very little copper) \\\"Red Dog Mine, which is the largest zinc mine in the U. S. is by far the #1 polluter on the EPA's list, because of large quantities of heavy-metal and lead rich mining tailing's. The process of refining both metals can release sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead and zinc into the environment. \\\" . http://www.treehugger.com... In conclusion, It is obvious that taking out the penny will result in a better future for the USA, financial and otherwise. Because of Con's constant assumptions, a single outdated, uneducated argument, and inability to create a rebuttal it is clear that Pro is the front runner in this debate. Thank you for reading this and Con, Good Luck.\",\n \"Should the U.S. keep the penny\\nGetting rid of the penny would actually be beneficial because prostitutes would lower their prices by a nickel to get exact change.\",\n \"The penny should be stopped from circulation\\nAlright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000\\\" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...\",\n \"The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.\\nToday, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated. In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that \\\"the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History.\\\" The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, \\\"the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system.\\\" He also claimed that the statement that the \\\"'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them. The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, \\\"two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article \\\"Penny Pinchers\\\" for The Globe, \\\"the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year.\\\" not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be \\\"important to our pricing system.\\\" Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them. As William Saffire comically remarked, \\\" the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle\\\" The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy. On the flip side, \\\"Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59.\\\" (William Saffire) *shakes head*\",\n \"Should the U.S. keep the penny\\nThis argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things.\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished\\nYou make a good point but why should it be abolished Abe must stay here are some reason's first it would be disrespectful to deface a Hero of this proud country its like getting rid of the flag.... The penny might be the lowest form of currency you can have but its still currency getting rid of currency might not go so well what if you need exact change but that's not the point defacing a President is down right disrespect and a great one at that a true American hero but when it comes to the digital age where there are just credit cards and debit cards and bit coins I don't mean today I mean in 50 years where there is only digital things I still want to dig into my pocket and find a nice shinny Abe and remember how far we have come.\",\n \"The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.\\n\\\"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \\\" Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \\\"The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies\\\" If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \\\"ULTIMATE\\\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, \\\"$10,000 for maintenance(annually)\\\"{2} a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation. {3} The past renovation cost us approximately \\\"$15 million dollars\\\" {2} With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. . \\\"Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \\\" This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value. \\\"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. \\\" My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \\\"Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. \\\" This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \\\"ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. \\\" If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim} \\\"Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \\\"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \\\" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. \\\" If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general. \\\"My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. \\\" A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability. Sources: {1}. http://www.debate.org... {2}. http://www.lighthousefriends.com... {3}. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {4}. http://www.nytimes.com...\",\n \"The penny should be stopped from circulation\\nYou did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)\\nOk, I am balancing many things right now, so this won't be as high a quality as I would like due to time and spread of mental power issues, but here it goes. Also, before I start, I am A) sorry for the gender mix-up; won happen again :). If my jesting comments concerning the biasness of the Pro's source seemed to be insulting, I am sorry. The internet is terrible at conveying emotions and the comments were not meant to be harsh. CP- I am kicking it. I did not state it was unconditional nor did my opponent hold me to that burden. The only offensive arguments Con could get off the counter-plan would be in a \\\"abuse is a voter\\\" sort of package, which my opponent did not do, ergo the kick is not abusive. However, I will respond to the abuse arguments anyway. \\\"This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \\\"picking a random metal\\\" is just a cop-out.\\\" As I stated, I believed the general counterplan would be better for the affirmative, thus I did not specify, just as a CX team does not specify who would propose their plan in Congress to pass it. However, the fact is, which my opponent conceded, THE COMMENTS SECTION CHECKS ABUSE. Just as in real life debate where cross-examination time checks clarification abuses, my opponent had 3 DAYS before her first round was posted to ask me to specify my counterplan, which I would have gladly done. At the point where she does not ask this, it is her fault and not mine, thus negating any possible offense one might give my opponent even though the CP is kicked. Note: Kicking the counterplan is not a reason to vote Pro. I am simply cleaning up the debate a bit and highlighting the important issues, rather than go for a counterplan that for the Pro is at best a wash. _________ Pro Case: _________ 1A Consumer Confidence: 1. If there is not burden for the Minister to say something along the lines of \\\"definitely\\\", then the fact that he did not is not a reason to discredit the card. Note that no evidence has been brought up to actually counter the card 2. Ok, just because KFC getting rid of mashed potatoes and the Double Down would harm sales like getting rid of green beans would does not mean that the harms of getting rid of green beans disappear. The offense still stands; it merely applies to other coins as well as pennies 3. Yes, the quotation itself does not fully track the bad effects to their eventual ends. That's why there is my analysis in round 1 that shows that the lowering of consumer confidence would be detrimental to the economy, analysis that was dropped in Round 2 and thus cannot be brought up in Round 3 by the Pro. 1B Cheaper than other transactions. I don't ignore the analysis made by the Pro. Rather I show how the \\\"cost\\\" would be insignificant if the calculations were true, in that the next cheapest form of payment would cost 4X as much, and also questions the validity of the calculations itself, which if were true, would cause so much harm that our economy would be in shambles. The offense in this contention is based on the source in this round that has been questioned and once I show that the source is not valid, the offense here falls. NACS 1. Yes, a website in support of eliminating the penny states that the NACS and Walgreens state statistics that support their side. As I stated, that is a HUGE ground for bias. I'm not calling any one a liar, please don't get that vibe, but not only have I searched the Walgreens and NACS sites myself for such statistics, but I have asked my opponent to provide the cites as well. At the point where I have called out my opponent's evidence and she has refused to provide the cite for it, WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT AS VALID. Therefore, ALL of my opponent's offense in her case, with the exception of the China contention, which I will get to, falls as it is based on this source and supposed waste of time. 2. Again, I am not calling anyone a liar, but at the point where you refuse to provide the cites to the supposed statements, the source cannot be accepted as valid. Also, what does physics have to do with economics? Contention 2 CP is dropped does not matter Brightline: Again, I don't know if it is a misunderstanding, but my opponent does not give an adequate answer. My opponent states the problem of debt, BUT NEVER SAYS HOW PASSING THE RESOLUTION FIXES THE PROBLEM. If we need to save 50 dollars and the plan saves 40, the problem can't be used as a reason to pass the plan as the problem is not solved. Conversely, if the plan saves 60 dollars, the impact is valid. My opponent fails to show how voting affirmative would solve the problem thus the contention must be ignored. Human Rights 1. China is in a much greater entrenchment of communism than the examples, thus it makes sense, it would not be an immediate affect, but a slower one. My opponent doesn't attack the link, but says its not acting fast enough, which is not really an attack 2. First, as the CATO article shows, by trading with them we are ENDING the abuses. Thus, the ethical issues are treated, though not in the way my opponent apparently wants to go. Secondly, crossapply the article from the first round. The US has its own human rights abuses and China has rightly called us out on them. We need to fix these before we take any comprehensive action on China. Neg Case Con.1 Extend the 600 million a year rounding tax; this goes dropped through out the round. Con. 2 1. First, this contention deals with LONG TERM IMPACTS. So, this does not apply, in fact this does not apply to any of my offense so it can just be ignored 2. Um, my opponent never said that inflation was a wash, and if she did, I would like her to explain the Great Depression or Zimbabwae. Extend the extreme inflation that the government would go under due to passing the aff's plan 3. The inflation on one item would not be small. However, as I have stated, the OVERALL impact would be huge Con 3. The point of the tax IS this raise; that is what the \\\"tax\\\" is comprised of. The fact is, there are a disproportionate items labled .5 and up as compared to lower, thus more items are going to be higher than lower, creating the tax. Extend the harm that stores lose 30% of their profit by the passing of the aff's plan 2 and 3 Extend that the 2-2.5 source is not valid Theft 1. Ok, so then the rise and fall of electronic purchases is a wash, STILL leading to my harms of theft. 2. As I stated in round 1, the danger is dealing with whether the employee has to use the cash register. If an item was $3.00 exactly, it is rather easy for the consumer to simply pull out three ones. At that point, the employee can simply bid them a good day and pocket the money, as there is no proof of the transaction as the register remains closed. This is MUCH less likely if the cost is say 3.47. As all the Neg offense still stands in this round and all of the Pro's offense that was not based on a source that has not been shown to be valid does not have a bright-line and thus no proof of solvency, I must urge a vote in negation.\",\n \"The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.\\nPennies should be retired because they are practically worthless and cost more to produce than they are actually worth. Over time, pennies have been losing value. Today, there is not much you can buy with a single penny. You may say that you can add them together to get worth, but that takes finding 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and time. A single penny costs 1.7 cents, while only being worth 1 cent, so every penny produced costs the U.S. government 0.7 cents. So about every 143 pennies, the government is losing a dollar. That is just a waste of money and is easily preventable.\",\n \"The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.\\n\\\"It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \\\"I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further. \\\"In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. \\\" \\\"My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \\\" Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \\\"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \\\" Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \\\"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\\\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \\\"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy. \\\"[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory. \\\"If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \\\"ULTIMATE\\\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. \\\"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \\\"This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \\\" >\\\"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase\\\"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \\\"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \\\" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \\\"If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. \\\"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. Evidence for the JC PENNY claim: >($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. My opponent misunderstood my claim that \\\"$7.02 as $6.98\\\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary? Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum. I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas. Sources:[1] . http://www.tpk.govt.nz... [2] . http://moneyrelease.com...\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)\\nThanks for the great debate, Con! :) Pro Case --------------- Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I wasn't placing a \\\"definitely will\\\" burden of proof on said finance minister. However, the quotation itself shows little reason to believe that discarding the penny will lead to imminent downfall of the economy. Furthermore, most of the harms that the Minister cites have to do with not minting low denomination coins, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's harms come from all coins. Counterplan: 1. My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination. 2. Cost stats still stand. See later responses. On Abuse: 1. This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \\\"picking a random metal\\\" is just a cop-out. 2. My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1] Imagine how much worse the harms are at the point where we accept the counterplan. Though my opponent asserts he has a source stating otherwise, even his own source indicates that aluminum is more expensive than zinc (.9369 cash value to .9276 cash value right now). 3. The US aluminum market is incredibly unhealthy. Aluminum exports alone have tanked 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2] Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Furthermore, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3] Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper 1. Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do. 2. Until my opponent addresses my analysis on cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended. Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum. NACS: 1. Search where I told you to, please. First RD 1 source, CTRL F, \\\"Walgreens.\\\" It's there. I promise. 2. Call B.S. all you want, but that website is just as reliable as any other source in the debate, including your CATO Institute and the blog citations. The man who maintains this website, Jeff Gore, is a physicist at M.I.T. That does give him some sort of professional, academic credibility, don't you think? However, if it'll make my opponent happy, I will email Jeff and ask him for his citation. Pro Contention 2 Cross-Application of Counterplan: 1. Apply all three of my abuse responses to the aluminum counterplan. Fail plan. 2. I'm a she. 3. Doesn't matter how much time I had. This is like waiting until cross-examination to read plan text. It isn't my job to coax his full plan out of him. He made it—he should state it up front. Brightline: My argument is that we already aren't acting freely, but no, I can't fix a $ amount to this. Foreign politics doesn't boil down to solely mathematics, and to expect that of me is downright silly. I do, however, prove conclusively that we are greatly indebted to China, which will in turn affect our foreign policy decisions with regards to not only China, but a number of other key countries. This goes unrefuted. Human Rights: 1. As the CATO Institute author readily admits, \\\"Although market reforms do not guarantee greater respect for human rights, economic prosperity brought increased pressure for democracy in such countries as South Korea and Taiwan.\\\" South Korea and Taiwan cannot possibly be compared to China, who, as my opponent mentions, is responding to capitalist expansion into their markets poorly. If this gentleman from the CATO Institute was correct, then the Great Firewall should have been down by now. China has the manpower to lead production, and their economic ascendancy shows this. Encouraging freer trade with such a nation does nothing but entrench their buying and selling power, which in turn encourages the Chinese government to strengthen itself and shirk off the criticisms and actions laid down against it by the likes of the U.S., who are too tied to it to act. 2. My opponent's responses, and the CATO Institute article, conveniently ignore ethical concerns surrounding the issue. By funding such a country, in which the government routinely abuses human rights, we are implicitly compromising our own ideals as a nation by supporting these actions. ---------------- Neg Case ---------------- Neg Contention 1: All my opponent did was re-assert that I can't prove any of my cost stats. That's based on a lack of acknowledgement of most of the sources I used in RD 1 and a challenge of legitimacy to the first source in RD 1. Neg Contention 2: On #1: 1. I don't immediately eliminate the penny. They'd most likely remain in circulation for a while. Immediate harms cannot be accessed by my opponent, which I pointed out in my last response. 2. Extend what I said about inflation being a wash. It still is, no matter how many times my opponent repeats himself. On #2 1. This doesn't answer the response I gave. Lombra is very specific about inflationary impact of the rounding tax. What he says afterwards is that those impacts might cumulate over time, and then cites his \\\"$2 billion in spending by 2010\\\" estimate. He doesn't say anything about individual items…? Neg Contention 3: On #1: The price stays raised to cover your rounding tax each year. I don't get why this negates what I said, which is that the tax would only need to make up the 30% profit lost of a 6-7 cent net profit. Even if we assume the worst, an item will never go up more than 2 cents in cost. We only need to aim for the closest \\\"5\\\" or \\\"0\\\" in a price (i.e. $2.99 is rounded to $3.00, while $2.97 becomes $2.95). On #2: Though the financial implications still remain, I typo'd on cents vs. seconds. My bad. I won't concede the financial impacts of the rounding tax, but I will advocate that you disregard what I said about 2-2.5 cents in the last RD. On #3: My sources are perfectly adequate. On #4 (Theft): 1. My opponent's source only deals in credit cards, not debit cards. Moreover, food stamps are now entirely electronic, though I don't know how much of the transaction market they monopolize (I do know that 19 million people participate in food stamp programs in the US). Debit card transactions in the US are on the rise [4], so I still don't bite those harms to the point of voting against my position. 2. I also asserted that, because the likelihood of carrying all other change vs. the penny has not been properly established, and because I'm not eliminated the use of all coins, the harms won't come to fruition. I don't stop merchants from making totals that require exact change. My opponent hasn't warranted how pricing something at $2.47 is inherently less dangerous than pricing it at $2.45. [1]http://www.infomine.com... [2]http://www.aluminum.org... [3]http://www.aluminum.org... [4] http://www.jsnet.org...\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)\\nThanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :) ============= Pro Case: ============= Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce. 2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro \\\"might\\\" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios. Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan 1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources. 2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material. 3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace \\\"China\\\" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague. Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper 1. Cheaper than what? 2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions. Pro Contention 1B: NACS \\\"Report\\\" 1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place. 2. Never claimed it was a report. 3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL \\\"F\\\" Walgreen. Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan 1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material. Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency 1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't. Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights 1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China. =============== Neg Case: =============== Neg Contention1: 1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said \\\"paid by each consumer,\\\" as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money. Neg Contention 2: 1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash. 2. The author of his source admits that \\\"the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small.\\\" Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy. Neg Contention 3: 1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it? 2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss. 3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro. 4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together—just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://useconomy.about.com...\",\n \"We should get rid of the penny\\nPoll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. \\\"These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America.\\\" said Weller. \\\"Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned.\\\" The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. \\\"Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want,\\\" said Weller. \\\"It's just common cents.\\\" Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. I watched the video, but I do implore that pro actually types out his own arguments.Contention 1: Penny is Useless?In the video my opponent brings up states that the penny is useless. But here's an interesting thing. I actually find pennies and then use them at garage sales where it is easy to use and people do not have a problem with it. Contention 2: Sales TaxIn today's world the sales tax is used and important in the US. Currently the sales tax varies across the US (http://salestax.avalara.com...) But where I live the sales tax is 7.3%. Let's say I go to McDonald's and buy a Dollar menu Cheeseburger. The total would be $1.07. Where I would have to pay with a dollar, a nickel, and 2 pennies. Or I could do a Dollar and a dime, but then McDonald's would need 3 pennies to return to me. A huge thing that the video my opponent is that the sales tax will be rounded up to the nearest 5 cents (at 3:09 in his video). This will cause prices to hike up and more people will be unable to pay for things. (http://coins.about.com...)Contention 3: NickelAnother key thing my opponent misses is that when the penny falls out of contention that the Nickel will cost more to make and the cycle will just continue to go on and on. The nickel costs 7.7 cents to make and when you do the math the US mint can make 5 pennies and still save more than making 1 Nickel. (http://coins.about.com...)","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals.","The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins This sure has been an exciting debate. I shall now proceed with my rebuttals. A1, A2, A3: I am going to rebut this case with another argument Pro has put: A2: the cost of producing coins. Sure, if you don't keep them, pennies are useless. However, if we are going to be super miserly, saving up pennies for years will eventually get to some big amount of money. You can choose one of these arguments. Also, the third argument would be good if people were incredibly exact about time. The thing here is that some people aren't. There are misers and there are people who don't care. This would argument only appeals to some. The new system: Well, it comes down to this: Some people would see this as a great opportunity to save money. If the price would be rounded up, you'd pay online. If it's going to be rounded down, pay in cash. I'm not so sure how many people would do this, but with 742 million people in Europe [1], there's bound to be a significant amount of people who do this, leading to a lower national budget (or one of the other cases I mentioned in the previous round). Evidence: I thank Pro for making this round easier for me by choosing examples of countries that are on a decline in national budget [2][3][4][5][6], furthering my proof that getting rid of the one and two cent coins lowers the budget. The only country that isn't on the decline is Denmark [7]. So, is it doable? Yes. Will it lower the budget? Yes. I now pass the debate mike to Pro. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 4. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 5. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 6. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 7. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished This debate is a redo of one of my previous debates. If you wish, you may view that one first to get the gist of my opinion. However, I am adding the rule that you may not quote anything I said in that debate for the duration of this one. This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good","Gettin rid of pennie's Briefly perhaps, but most of the information that passes through the brain is permanently forgotten. If the brain recorded moments like a tape recorder, then it would be theoretically possible to produce a transcript of every sentence you ever heard in your lifetime: every statement spoken by a professor in every classroom, every line of every movie, every mundane comment made over breakfast across tens of thousands of meals. The brain is specialized for processing information, not recording it. The ability to form any kind of episodic record of the past is fairly recent in brain evolution. And even still, eye-witness testimony is among the most unreliable types of evidence there is. No one is forced to forget anything, it is just a change in history, along with New Zealand. If you double the halfpenny, it is just as worthy as the whole penny. You can still teach children how to add, maybe with fractions. (e.g 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5) Its not that hard to learn how to round, as for the elderly well if they are that aged, I don't think that that specific elderly would be paying his/hers bills. If you feel that,the penny elimination is important to you, and that you have no say, you might want to start a partition.","The Penny Arguments 1. I don't fully understand my opponents argument here. It cost 1.8 pennies to make one Penny so you actually loose the repeat use because, before there was 1.8 pennies and now There is one penny. My opponent argues that now you can reuse the penny making it worth it. Well not exactly, every time you make a new penny the value of the old ones less. Just because the penny last longer don't mean it's still not a waste, every time the government literally spends money to make less money the citizens are taxed to make up for it. I don't agree that the reuse adds value either because even if paper money needs to made more often it still cost less by proportion. 2. My opponent agrees that the penny has no buying power. 3. Ahhh... To the good part. To get the price just right the cash has to be divisible by smaller units so you don't over pay. But it cant be divided forever because at some point the value it represents becomes to small to buy anything with or to bother with. Yes there is nothing to make that up with but eventually it just doesn't matter anymore. Whats the point of exact change if you cant buy anything with the change? You would need 25 pennies to buy a ball of gum if the machines actually excepted them. Rebuttal 1. It will takes some work with fixing up prices, but the simplest method would be by rounding the prices (with tax) to nearest five cents or maybe fixing the sales tax percentage. 2. I don't think there will be a shortage of money towards the Salvation Army or any charity for that matter. If on average for every five donators, three donators don't give any money but two give them nickels instead, the Salvation Army just made twice as much. Another point is that one penny again really doesn't make a difference, if two thousand people brought one penny that would be twenty dollars and honestly wouldn't help homeless people at all. 3. Nickels are rarely used and are bad for the economy so I probably would, but I haven't done enough research to confirm this and it's best to take one thing out at a time. If you ask about sources I'm planning on putting them on the last round, I anticipate your next argument and wish you good luck :)","The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Maybe instead of simply cutting the production, we greatly reduce the number of pennies manufactured each year, use a much more readily available (non-toxic) resource, and possibly offer to anyone who brings in their copper pennies (to be refined and used where it's more needed) an equivalent in U.S. currency with the new form of penny. It seems like a lot of work but I still believe all the changes to taxes and the effects on economy are much worse. With your stance on how they should be \"retired because they are practically worthless\" there are some problems as well. You said there is approximately 13 billion pennies produced each year which equals 130 million dollars worth of pennies. If they were retired then that would be 130 million dollars wasted on their production each year that they've been produced. So retiring them is not a very viable solution. With this I back my main two ideas of reducing the number produced and making them out of cheaper material (but still keep the old copper pennies in use).","Convert the penny!!! For those interested, Professor Raymond Lombra from Pennsylvania State University published an analysis on the economic effects of eliminating the penny. The article is entitled \"Eliminating the penny from the U.S. coinage system: An economic analysis.\" This article was published in the Eastern Economic Journal, 2001, vol. 27, pages 433-442. Here is a link to the article for those that wish to read it: http://findarticles.com... In this article he shows that the rounding tax is not a myth, contrary to what my opponent has claimed. He furthermore demonstrates that it would be an economic disaster. And unlike the article by Robert Whaples, this one appears in a peer-reviewed journal. In almost any field, a peer-reviewed article is given much more credence than an article that is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, he describes the methods and provides data. This is something that is conspicuously absent from Whaples' article. The penny must be kept!","The United States should cease production of the penny Much of this argument will be tied into convincing those who are reading, and can vote. But, like the penny those who cannot vote, still have a valued by opinion in this matter and can be counted by their comment. The penny\"s value is beyond its own self-evident worth it will be proved to be a reflection of our labor. The penny holds a liberty which serves and greater good and is worth in its added cost beyond face value. 1.The Penny is a part of an impartial system of measurement and as a part of the system it is expected to be held as part of its measurement and value. Not a just cost and value. When it shows a negative number by its own profit. It is a part of the overall machine showing wear or abuse in that system. The penny is simply just .0001% of a dollar. The measurement outside of its well-known value is a direct relationship to our method of keeping time. Its transposition is to the ten-thousands by volume. 2.The pricing of metal makes it profitable to harvest pennies out of an economy. The obligation behind all taxation is immediately to the United States Connotation Separation process. The removal of the penny means an instant pay raise for inappropriate spending. Spending which should have been going to safeguarding the harvesting of United States Private Property, its penny and the value by weight of metal. The pennies copper or metal is incapable of self-regulation. The Federal Reserve Note in line behind every penny most certainly has this ability. It only fails when squandered elsewhere. 3.The penny is an economic indicator to inflation it is part of a clock system. I have recently started argument that the national Debt Clock is indeed inaccurate. Part of the inaccuracy is how it aligns Debt spending by its lowest value. The mistake is in increments. The lower values in debt accurately run backwards as mentioned in my opening reason the penny has a negative transposition valued at Ten-Thousand. The hard thing to want to take is this measurement is for loss not profit. In the Axiom of GOD we TRUST, the reason for this somewhat obscure logic all people want to know about the possibility of loss first as an indication or warning. 4.The pennies worth for harvest was not always 1 cent it was driven by inflation. When the pennies is gone that means the nickel is next in the line of inflation driven harvesting. Instead of 1 cent it will be .05 cents which is taken. The Government has always operated by rounding up to the nearest .05 cents. To justify this action which can destabilizes an impartiality, how any-one can say this action of round up has improved cost is hiding the examples of its overall performance. After all the Governing body has been collecting four times more than the rest of the Nation and the rising spending provides us with a quarter or less in stability or progress.","The US should abolish the penny I would like to thank Forthelulz for accepting this debate On to my arguments: Argument 1: Pennies are a waste of money As of now it takes 1.7 cents to make a penny when a penny is only worth 1 cent. Because the US makes billions of these per year the costs add up. In 2014, around 8,146,400,000 new pennies were made that year. Take the cost and multiply it by the amount of new pennies circulated in 2014 and you get 57 million dollars wasted every year to keep alive this dead currency. That is money that could be used for better things. Even if the cost of pennies were reduced if they were made of something that represents their true nature like plastic, this does not solve the fundamental problem with pennies. Argument 2: Pennies fail as currency Let me build a scenario, you want stuff from a shop keeper. Rather than bartering like savages, you use money as a means of exchange. That is what money is meant to do. Money is used as means to facilitate the transaction of goods. Pennies fail to meet this function that because they are very inconvenient to use. For example, try to pay for $10 worth of groceries with 1000 pennies in your pocket. Even if you just pay in exact change pennies still prove an inconvenience. When you get to the counter and fumble with getting the right amount of pennies, you waste other people\"s time. Pennies not only make transaction of goods more frustrating and inconvenient but in many cases, they also fail as a mean of transacting goods. Say you rather not waste people\"s time and go to a machine to take your pennies and return a good or service. However such machines are virtually nonexistent. Toll booths don\"t accept them, vending machines don\"t accept them, parking meters, laundry machines, or anything else because they aren\"t worth the time and effort to count, transport, and store them. The only machine that exists today that accepts pennies is Coin Star. It is but a leech on the economy that takes 10% of your hard earned cash and returns 90% of money that you should already be able to use. Back then, pennies could actually buy things, but the rising cost of pennies and inflation ultimately makes pennies a useless currency and the reason why most pennies end up in jars. Conclusion: Because of the cost of the US penny and the fact that it fails to facilitate the transaction of goods, we should move on and abandon the penny. Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...","The Penny First off, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you. The United States's money is based on a basic cents system, with 1 cent being a unit. The value of the dollar has dropped nearly 80% in the last few decades, and prices have inflated to new highs. Very little can be bought with pennies, and yet they should not stop production, even at the cost of 1.8 cents per cent. Refutations: 1. Pennies cost 1.8 cents to make, which con points out is more then the penny is worth, but does not consider the value of repeat use, especially by something as durable as a penny. Estimates on how long a penny last range from 20-25 years, going through thousands of exchanges, each time adding value to the actual cost of producing the penny. In the end, the penny stimulates the economy far more than the 1.8 cents they cost, lasting 25 years compared to the dollar bill's 18 months of existence. (1) 2. While I disagree that paper money was to make things easier to buy, con is correct, little can be bought solely with pennies. Although I will go into it extensively later, paying with pennies is not their use, but instead is for reaching the exact cost of something. 3. Machines do not accept pennies, as they are not taxed and always round up to a clean number, something prices in stores would not do. As for their usefulness, I would argue that when one pays in cash, just as many or more pennies are exchanged then any other type of bill. Almost any price will come out with tax not a perfect five cent round. If something costs 4:53, you have to add an additional 3 cents, only payable with pennies. If you pay with a five dollar bill, then you will receive at least two pennies in change. There is nothing else you could make up that difference with. Arguments against: 1. If the penny was eliminated, it would make pricing things nearly impossible. Unless every price is rounded to a five cent mark, the only thing you can pay with cash is pennies. Add ever-changing tax to that cost, and it is almost impossible to price anything. Con claims he can refute this, which I will hold them to. I am yet to see a good refutation to this point, and I will be impressed if con has one. 2. Many charities work off pennies, either receiving all their donations or a large percentage of them from pennies alone. Such charities include Habitat for Humanity, World Wildlife Fund, and the Salvation Army. These charities and many more rely on pennies, because of people's willingness to part with pennies. (2) 3. The nickel's value has dropped just as much as the dollar and penny, are rarely used in purchase, and nickels cost 11.2 cents to produce. (3) Would you have them eliminated as well? What nonsense. No, nickels are similar to the pennies, and the arguments are valid for both. We work on a cent system, and eliminating the one cent and five cent are fiscally ridiculous. I will begin with this. Good luck, con! (1) http://www.factmonster.com... (2) http://www.pennies.org... (3) http://www.businessinsider.com...","The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Before I begin, I'd like to point out that Pro lacks actual arguments, he/she simply posted refutations to what I said, which, in my opinion is not enough to win. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Minting Cost My esteemed colleague has stated that, as of 2011, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. However, I'd like to point out that they have cited a source from 2011. As of 2014, pennies only cost 1.7 cents to make, down 2.4 cents from 2011 (. http://blogs.wsj.com...). Therefore, the evidence shows that the amount it costs to make the penny is actually on the decline. Soon, it will not be much of a loss for the US to make it, meaning that there is not an adequate reason to abolish its use. Refutation 2: Debt \"Removing the penny is only good for debt\" is what Pro states. I strongly disagree as we will lose $600 million/year with the rounding system as earlier showed in my first argument. The United States' debt recently hit $18 trillion, and I believe Pro and I have a common interest in lowering that debt. However, the solution is not to take the penny out of service. Also, after this statement, Pro brings up a source and says that the US will save 7.6 trillion dollars/year without the penny, yet he/she fails to provide any reasoning behind this. It's just going to happen. .. somehow. .. I don't think so. Therefore, Pro's case has one more flaw. Refutation 3: Economical Harm Refutation My mistaken opponent stated that the penny will only affect cash transactions in response to my argument about economic harm. However, they have ignored a chunk of the argument in saying this since the source I stated about the $600 million a year being lost is talking about cash purchases. (Here's a link: . http://pennies.org...) Therefore, Pro simply danced around my argument instead of actually attacking it head-on. Refutation 4: Charities Refutation A contradictory statement made by Pro is \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel. \" This is like saying \"People like beef, but they'll like chicken better sooner or later. \" Therefore, It is a contradictory statement that cannot be proved. To expand on my charity point, pennies are better than nickels for donations since pennies are worth less, and, because of that, people donate more, which eventually becomes more money for the charities. If people donated nickels, they would be more stingy with how many they gave. Refutation 5: Canada \"We use\" and \"As a Canadian\" are two prime examples of phrases used by Pro that prove his/her misunderstanding of the topic. If I may reiterate, the topic is \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service,\" not \"The Canadian Penny Should be Taken out of Service. \" Pro fails to use any American examples and is under the delusion that the Canadian economy is exactly the same as the United States economy, proving another point for Con. Refutation 6: Burden I gave Pro a 3-pronged burden of proof and, so far, no prong has been fulfilled. Let's break them down individually. 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. Pro slightly dances around this by saying that it costs a lot to make a penny, but never follows through, and I have already taken this down earlier. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. Pro has not mentioned anything whatsoever about this prong. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. Pro never even brings up a clear-cut plan. Sure, they mention things like \"the penny plan\" and \"the plan,\" but what is this plan? The world may never know, or at least not myself and the voters since Pro has not mentioned this. Here is a statement made by Pro: \"I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport. \" If he/she does not agree with my terms (they actually were originally outlined since the first round was for acceptance), then why didn't Pro attempt at refuting them? As an Instigator, it is assumed that I have the burden of proving my point. I already have proved my point, yet Pro has not proved his/hers since he/she has failed to meet his/her burden. I completely agree that it is up to the voters to decide, this burden is a mere aid for the voters, saying that if Pro does not have these three things, they can't win because their case is not sufficient to prove their assertions. Conclusion: Because of Pro's ignoring of evidence, misunderstanding of the topic, outdated evidence, and inability to fulfill his/her burden, it is clear that Con is currently the front runner in this debate.","The penny should be immediately discontinued. For reader/voter convenience I will go in the same order my opponent does Cont. 1- In order for this response to have a chance to hold water, my opponent first must prove that the United States indeed has the resources necessary to grow enough food for the whole nation. Until my opponent gives proof of this, the food portion of the response must be ignored. If we do not have the facilities to do so, then importing food is certainly not a waste of money as it helps ensure the continuation of the nation. As far as the monuments go, the point of having them is to commemorate the various historical heroes of our country. My point is that we are paying extra money to keep the penny when there is no reason to keep it other than your suggestion of the benefit nostalgic value which I have shown not only to be outweighed by the harm of economic down-fall but that it in-fact does not exist. And as I showed in my first contention, the penny is NOT a small waste of money. Cont. 2- My opponent forgets that the other half of products would go down in his hypothetical situation. However, this is not a viable situation unless stores never changed pricing strategies, sales tax would be eliminated, and people never bought more than one item, all of which randomize rounding. In fact, a recent study(http://www.wfu.edu...) confirms that the effect of rounding would be neutral. Cont. 3- Here my opponent drops that we would lessen our dependence and that that would be beneficial, thus those points stand. He goes off into an illogical point that we would become more dependent on countries making the ingredients for other coins. I ask how is it possible that lowering the need of zinc heightens the need for other metals. Cont. 4- I am sorry, there has been some misunderstanding. When I said the penny has no value, I meant nostalgic value. The stat with 58% saving and the germ reference were simply to point out that people think so little of the penny that they not only put them away rather than keep to spend them but germs actually become a bigger part of the decision of whether or not to pick up a penny off the ground than the value of the penny, actual or nostalgic. (Besides that money \"poured back\" into the economy would just raise inflation.) Last paragraph- Please note I never said that the penny would be THE reason for an economic recession, just a contributor. My opponent concludes by saying that the amount of debt grows \"THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.\" Considering that I have proven that the penny costs us BILLIONS of dollars and this has remained uncontested, this only strengthens my argument. Now, I must wait for my opponent's closing statements.","Stop the Minting of the American Penny Thanks to con for relinquishing the last round, and for joining me in this debate.If we look at con's fifth source, which s/he used to stress his/her belief that the US will lose money, we see in exactness why Rodney Bosco, the author of the article, believes this to be the case. Mr. Bosco states that getting rid of the penny, a coin produced with money lost as a result, would \"...increase demand for the nickel, which is also currently produced at a loss\" (p.2). While this is true, simply keeping the penny and changing the contents of it would not be an adequate measure. Perhaps changing the nickel's contents, a coin that has ten times the buying power of the penny, would be (or we could get rid of it too, but that's for another debate, I suppose). Even using the multi-ply plating technology would not be enough. To stress this point, Bosco said that such technology has \"...been successfully used by the RCM to manage circulating coinage for Canada...\"(p.3) - a country that even with this method got rid of their penny three years ago as of this May. I must stress that the penny's content is something that can be changed, but is not worth changing when considering how low its buying power is.As for the argument \"you don’t see people abolishing the car…. Or milk,\" I don't see this as a perfect comparison. Cars provide fast and effective transportation, and milk has nutritional value. Pennies, on the other hand, don't provide the services that they should. Even the argument pertaining to those who use cash to pay for things doesn't have much basis, and I'll explain why: the part about rounding up goes against what I've already said about the myth of the \"rounding tax\" back in Round 2. Most places that have gotten rid of the penny round both up and down, and it's worth mentioning that no significant effect has been shown to the economy and there has been no significant or noticeable rise in prices nor, for that matter, has there been any decrease in charitable donations [1]. It is also worth mentioning that people who are poorer and would use money more are statistically more likely to donate money to charity.Finally, I would like to say that the amount of money earned back from reforming the penny does not reach how much we have lost, as attested by my argument in Round 2.I thank con again for joining me in this debate. Vote for pro.Sources:[1]:","In the US, pennies should be abolished. I. Pennies are used to control inflationI don't think the OP understands why we have pennies. It's not to control prices, per say. It is to control inflation rates. Let me explain. Pennies have low value, being only .01$, which means we can pump however many out we need to control inflation to the number. It is the most precise way to control inflations rates.If you control inflation rates, you control prices. If you control prices, you control how much consumption and investment goes through the economy. With that said, it is 100% neccesary to have pennies for monetary control of the economy.II. Forex Trade will CrashThe Opposition needs to take into consideration the volatity of FX trade. Currecy exchanges are very profitable to the US. Here are two reasons why removing the penny would crash USD exchange over FX.1. We can not control the USD to ensure ultimate deals by trading USD over Forex.2. Foreign traders will be forced to round to .05$, decreasing the amount the USD gets bought and sold.III. NASDAQ and the Stock Exchange will be hurt NASDAQ is the national stock exchange of America. The opposition has not thought this out. Most stocks are rounded to the penny. For example. Green Energy Co. sells stock for .13$, or the stock of Speedwat right now is 18.14$. The problem with abolishing the penny, is that all stock purchases need to be rounded up to the nearest .05$, which for investors who purchase 1000's of shares monthly, this will completely hinder their investments.That .01$ adds up, and with the stock market up 140%, this would be the worst possible time for the US to remove the penny.","The United States should cease production of the penny In this speech I will be showing that my opponent's arguments are flawed 1. My opponent relates pennies to time, and shows how it correlates to time. My opponent does however, not show a correlation since their is no explicit or implicit link that they make between time and pennies. In fact, the average person who pays with pennies will spend 2 seconds extra per penny at the register. That means that my opponent is exactly wrong, pennies in fact take our time away. 2. There is no cost for ceasing production of the penny. Although my opponent may have misunderstood the resolution as pennies are now not accepted, the resolution simply asks whether production should be stopped. As I stated in my case, pennies actually cost billions of dollars a year to manufacture, so this argument falls. 3. Yet again, no link is made between the claim and the proof. My opponent states that pennies are economic indicators, but offers no evidence, either objective or analytical. This means that this argument should be ignored due to the lack of support. 4. The resolution clearly states ceasing production of the penny and not removal of it as legal tender, so this argument is also not relevant. 5. I am not sure what my opponent is attempting to claim, but it appears that they are claiming hackers steal pennies by the 5. We can safely assume its irrelevance in the matter.","Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Sorry about the late response, to my arguments.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth.2. Other countries have done it with success.3. We've gotten rid of coins before.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth. The cost to produce a penny is approximately 1.83 cents to make, and it is only worth 1 cent. This being so the government loses $55,000,000 doing this transaction. [1] Although this is basically zero compared to the current national debt, it would be a good start in lowering the debt.2. Other countries have done it before.Finland, New Zealand, and Canada have all ceased making one cent pieces for transaction [2]. They have all done this without harm to their economy, and it has gotten easier to make transactions with cash, as prices are rounded to the nearest 5 cents for cash users. (credit users still use one cent numbers, but they don't need pennies). [4]3. We've gotten rid of coins before. We used to have a half-cent piece, but that had lost all of it's value. The dime even is now worth about as much as the half cent was, so it is time to change. [3] [4]Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [2] http://coincollectingenterprises.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [4] Video http://www.youtube.com...","The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. The background provided by weirdman in undoubtably true. No denying history. However, he contended that \"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" On the other hand, my point was that the penny possessed such negligible value today such that the economy is actually losing money manufacturing it and where a dime is worth a penny during 1970. One can imagine the value it may have possessed in the past but that is not the point of this debate. It is about the penny now. (Please correct me if I am getting your point about the penny being of personal value incorrect. )The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but I have to acknowledge that the penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful. \" Greg Mankiw, EconomistI agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. Another popular belief I forgot to mention is the one my opponent brings up. Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. My opponent mentioned that 15.5% of the American population is of the lower class and therefore would have problems. However, that means that 84.5% of the population is of the middle or upper class. Take a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. I thank commentor \"Janus\" for bringing up a relevant question. No, we would not round to the nearest bill. My point was the we would eliminate the penny. Therefore, we would round up and down accordingly to mathematics and thus, prices would statistically cancel out. Sources used in the previous and current post:(1)KNS FINANCIAL 16 March 2011<. http://www.redeemingriches.com...;(2)Lewis, Mark. \"Ban the Penny. \" Forbes. com 5 July 2002. 8 February 2006<. http://www.forbes.com...;(3)Kahn, Ric. \"Penny Pinchers. \" Globe. com 9 October 2005. 10 February 2006<. http://www.boston.com...;(4)Saffire, William. \"Abolish the Penny. \" nytimes. com 2 June 2004. 3 November 2006<. http://select.nytimes.com...;(5)Weller, Mark W. Letter. Unpublished letter to the New York Times. Americans for Common Cents. 7 Nov. 2006 <www. pennies. org>(6)\"Abolish the Penny? A Majority of the Public Says 'No'\" The Harris Poll #51 15 July 2004. 8 March 2006<. http://www.harrisinteractice.com...;(7) \"President Bush signs Lincoln Penny Redesign Into Law. \" Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 22 December 2005. 8 March 2006<. http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov...;","The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport:\" The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market.\"\" Taking the penny out of service will minimalist harm the economy.\"\"Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\"As of 2011, it costs 2.41¢ US (or $0.0241 US Dollars (USD)) to make a penny, making the coin's face value less than its actual value. http://www.wisegeek.org...This fact alone is sufficient enough to justify removing the penny from the market, or more correctly simply stop creating them as this is the more efficient plan. The reason that this is bad, other then the obvious, is that it increases the national debt in a pretty useless way. Removing the penny is only good for debt. Without the penny the government estimates it will save 7.6 TRILLION dollars in just ten years. http://www.enzi.senate.gov...Argument 1: Economical HarmI don't think you quite understand the \"penny plan\". As a Canadian (with a diploma in business) I have witnessed this plan first hand. The consumers worried that their $19.99 product will increased to $20.00 need not worry as it will stay at $19.99. The penny only effects Cash transactions, not electronic. all debit, gift card, credit card, cheque, etc. will be handled as if there is a penny.As for rounding of pennies the cost of using cash normally does not change. We use a complete rounding system, not a rounding up system as you implied. This means that $1.01 and $1.02 would be rounded down to $1, while $1.03 and $1.04 would be rounded up to $1.05. If you play close enough attention to your pennies you can actually save money by only using cash when it is time to round down, but not much. http://www.cbc.ca...Argument 2: CharitiesThe penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly over shadowed by the nickel (5-1). There is no evidence that suggests people who donate will simply stop donating because there is no penny. In fact donations may rise because people \"have\" to give more then just a couple pennies. Furthermore Charities in Canada held drives to collect the \"worthless\" pennies once they where discontinued. http://theotherpress.ca...","Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. I will be debating for stopping the production of the penny. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!","The US should abolish the penny Okay, dropping a few definitions of my own, not conflicting with any Pro provided. Hope Pro doesn't mind. Consumerism - the theory that an increasing consumption of goods and services is economically desirable. Instant gratification - The consumer receiving the good/service immediately or in an expedited manner upon paying for it, instead of a delay. Definitions adapted from merriamwebster.com My argument for keeping the penny is a simple one. Not everyone has a credit card. There are those of us who have to make do with the money in our pockets when we go spending. The penny allows for cashiers to make change more easily. For example, a $0.99 item (after tax) is being paid for with a one dollar bill. Well, the change for that is... wait for it... one penny. Sure, that is a specific example, but still, convenience. For reference, consumerism is still alive and well here in America. The penny, as it is now, is a medium of exchange, legal tender, for all debts, public and private, here in America. An announcement of an attempt at abolishing the penny would result in an uproar unless it coincided with a sporting event. The way the debate statement is phrased, abolishing the penny would cut down on the money supply a bit, but so would contractionary fiscal policy. We are paying 1.7 cents per penny for convenience. Sure, there are downsides, such as a bunch of pennies being really heavy, but they have machines like Coin Star* for that. You are paying for convenience when it takes 10% from your monies, but you can now get bills and nickels on up, and drop the penny in the chain's pet project charity of the week's box if you so desire. The term for such a thing is instant gratification. Another example of instant gratification from our daily lives is fast food, such as In-N-Out or McDonalds. You get your food very quickly, allowing you to resume your life sooner than if you went to a sit-down restaurant. There are those that would say, \"Hey, fast food is cheaper than sit-down.\" Yes, that is true. However, fast food can and does serve more customers overall, which means they can have lower prices, to attract more customers. Yet again, In-N-Out would be a prime example of this. A better example of instant gratification would be the one-day or two-day shipping options when shopping online. \"You want this thing? You want it now? Pay a little extra to get it!\" As far as I can tell, *This, and all the other examples given aren't advertising; I'm just using the examples I know. A very good question for those penny-punters (not pinchers) would be \"What then? Do all existing pennies become worth the alloys they are made of?\" Chances are, they just saw an example of waste and wanted to smite it, initiate sweeping reforms, and get a statue (made of smelted pennies or something pretentious yet awesome like that) somewhere. A buyback program would work... up until pennies don't show up in multiples of five. Would we round up or round down in such a case? If we round up, we're throwing money at people. If we round down, we're taking even more money from people. If we round up, the government loses in the short run, which is bad for the politicos, but good for the people. If we round down, it looks better on the balance sheet for that year, but a lot of people just lost a few pennies. Admittedly, people would probably lose less than they spend on a cup of coffee on any given day, but there would still be a bit of outrage, and outrage is bad for the incumbents. And now the rambling bit that I really should write better, but because of reasons, I only had twenty minutes to write this, because of a prior engagement that I should have remembered earlier that, fortunately, let out early. Wishing wells and/or the Uncomfortable Truths Well would have a lot more nickels, dimes, and quarters in them. We already have issues with fractions of cents. Don't make it worse by getting rid of the penny. It's easier to use a Coin Star, take it to the cashier, and deposit it in a savings account than it is to do a buyback. How much change do you have lying around that you won't find for a couple years? How long is the aforementioned buyback program in effect? Which way was it going again? Were they rounding up or down? Will it simply take place at a bank, or will there be specialized facilities? All of these are legitimate concerns. In conclusion, the penny is still a viable medium of exchange and store of value. By all means, we should keep it around.","The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Okay, man, it has been a while since I've done this. I thank Kleptin for organizing this tournament, and alto2osu for this debate challenge. Without further ado, let us begin (As a brief roadmap, I will go down my opponent's case before my own). Interpretation- This is a reasonable interpretation, and the one I intended when I originally made the debate. Thus, I agree and there is no clash here. 1a. I cannot deny the cost of zinc in the world. However, alto2osu makes it seem like the discontinuation of pennies is the only action to take, with the net benefit of public confidence in the economy through reform. However, we can see that the elimination of the one-cent piece would actually LOWER consumer confidence, as the German Finance Ministry stated for the introduction of the one-cent euro piece [1, page 8]: \"If a euro one-cent coin were not introduced, public opinion might regard this as a sign of weakness in the euro and confidence in the stability of the common European currency might suffer as a result\" Also, this is not the only option to solve this problem. At the point where the cause of this cost is from the metal it is made from, primarily zinc, we can see that it is much more beneficial to accept the following counter-plan: \"The United States should change the metal that pennies are made out of\". Not only does this solve my opponents first point, but it has the net benefit of avoiding the harms of the negative case that is to come. 1b. Again, while the case my seem to be against the penny, the actual cost of a cash transaction comparatively is not the wasteful picture my opponent paints. When stores calculated the cost of each transaction (in time, armored courier costs, etc.), they found that cash transactions, including those with pennies, were the cheapest by FAR, whether it be per item, or in total transactions [1, page 6] Also, I searched for this report by the NACS that you claimed, but I could not find it. I'm not saying you are lying, but could you please give the source? 2 First, cross-apply the counter-plan. If the penny is not made out of zinc, we don't have this \"problem\". Secondly, we must see that even if this sale happens, we do not become more \"indebted\" to China. This is simply one company selling itself off. Ok, we don't have the world's biggest deposits of zinc. Therefore it makes sense we are not the biggest producers; this is not apocalyptic , just common sense. \"We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy.\" Can you prove this? Where is the bright-line between us being able to operate freely and not operate freely? On human rights, we already have NO influence on China in the issue of human rights, nor do private businesses as shown with the recent tiff between China and Google. In fact, China shot back at the US calling the US hypocrites for criticizing China.[2] Neg case (other than impact turns): 1 Direct Impact. If one were to get rid of the penny, obviously one would have to round prices to the nearest nickel. While seemingly insignificant, this causes a huge price to be paid. Due to the disproportionate amount of items ending with 9 and certain other numbers [1 page 3], a $600 million \"round tax\" as Lambra calls it, would be paid by each consumer yearly simply because of this rounding. If we are going to talk economic impacts, this forced extra spending that does not actually produce benefit is simply going to leave consumers with less disposable income, meaning less spending which means a slower recovery if not another recession. 2 Long-term-Inflation. Long term impacts do not look any better. The rounding that would occur would negatively affect governmental spending. Using data from the congressional budget office, Lambra calculates that government spending would be up by 2 billion JUST by this rounding. Note that this was is 2001, when the economy was actually good and our spending was not that high. With the higher spending we have today, the artificial rise would just be that much greater. 3 Stores- Finally, we can look to the affect on stores. After taking into account the fact that cash transaction is the cheapest transaction to make, we can see that this rounding would run stores out of buisness. At a 1998 convention, the NACS stated that the average profit per transaction is about 6-7 cents [1 page6] Thus, a two-three cent rounding would take about 30% of a store's profit basically kicking someone while they are down. Also we can look to the threat deterrence of pennies. Without pennies, exact change is more likely to be had. At that point, the register does not have to be opened to procure change and the employee can just pocket the money. With pennies, this is MUCH less likely to happen. For all these reasons, I urge a vote in negation. 1: http://college.holycross.edu... 2: http://www.reuters.com...","The penny should be immediately discontinued. Once again, same order 1st cont: he seems to have failed to remember that the entire world used to run off the crops they themselves grew, not by other people. And when/if we start importing food, IT WILL COST MONEY, and lots of it, therefore outweighting any small amout we might be overpaying to make the iconic penny. 2nd Cont: Now onto the whole roundung situation. How many products do you see that are like 19.05 or 13.24..little, if any. Most produts are such prices like 19.95, or 14.99. in face maore then half of all products are that way, not exactly half, therefore NOT neutral. 3rd Cont: I did not drop it, i proved we would just switch our dependence from china to other countries, or possibly even stay on china. and if we get rid of all the pennies, then we are going to need to replace them with nickels and dimes. and whatabout when they get too expensive to make, do we get rid of coins until its all bills, then work our way thruogh all the bills until we are all using hundreds to buy a gallon of milk? 4th Cont: The germ issue applies even more to bills then to pennies, once again, bill are made of linen a very easy cloth to contaminate with batcteria. 5th Cont: If it cost BILLIONs of dollar to make pennies, then that must mean the same if not even more with nickels, dimes, quarters, ect. So, in conclusion, i beg you, don;t get rid of the penny, it would be just as unpatriotic as ripping up the Lincon monument, or toppling th eStatue of Liberty.","Convert the penny!!! The United States Government should stop produce current Jefferson nickels and replace them by making Lincoln pennies worth 5 cents and cease a $.01 piece of currency. Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel. Seignoirage allows the government to profit off of minting currency, but only when the coin costs less to produce than its value. For instance, the $20 bill costs about 4 cents to make. Due to the negative seignoirage value, the creation of nickels and pennies adds to the federal deficit by a considerable amount. We produced over 7 billion pennies and 1 billion nickels, COSTING the government and taxpayers over $150 million. By stopping the production of Jefferson nickels and substituting them with Lincoln pennies, the cost of the new Lincoln nickels drops 6 cents and halts the production of approximately 6 billion coins, greatly reducing cost. I'm happy to address further concerns in the next round.","We should get rid of the penny I will be taking pro for this argument, I think wer should abolish pennies, con takes the point of view as if we shouldn't.","The United States should cease production of the penny 1.To understand the penny's value you must look at time, as the penny equals the second, and how it relates to trade within it, to know the penny is not just the .01 cent you are giving up in an economy, it is the seven numbers .02, .03, .04, .06, .07, .08, .09 in a clock. The time increase can be seen in seven new numbers. That increased will run .05, .10, .15, .20, .25, .30, .35 .Who among us really needs less time? 2.The cost of discontinuing the penny will instantly mean a direct sale tax increase across the boards. As these determinations may be based on the dollar but paid by the penny. 3.The cost of a penny is an economic indicator. What indications will be lost or hidden when it is removed from production. 4.When the penny is taken from an economy there is no longer the lowest proportion savings relevant to time set in production cost within manufacturing goods. This means instant higher cost in bulk purchased materials. 5.Nobody by the hacker ever thought to ever steal a penny. They do add up quickly and you want to it x5 . The pennies cost was never recoverable it serves a different purpose in the axiom. It has a logical reason of value no self-evident.","Stop the Minting of the American Penny Yea sorry about the mishap. Thanks for being understanding though. That being said, this will be my last round for arguments, so I will respond to the Pro side’s last post and provide more clarity on my position. Section 1: The Penny has an Economic Impact in Industry, and Industry Tries to Help. In my last round, I reported that if the penny suddenly stopped being produced, that there would be a significant impact in the zinc industry that could cause large contracts with the government to be essentially voided. One such contract is with Jarden Zinc Products[1][2], who currently have contracts worth millions with the government to produce such pennies, and such voiding of coins for production would significantly have an impact on this industry. These companies don’t try and stifle the American government either, as such industry uses modern technology to reduce the cost of the manufacturing. Multi-ply plating technology is now used to reduce cost when compared to through alloy coins, and makes these coins possess a unique electro magnetic signature (EMS) which provides for greater coin security.[1] So yes I see the Pro’s side in that robotics can help manufacture durables (or pennies for this debate) cheaper, and that’s great, but against Pro’s argument, you don’t see people abolishing the car…. Or milk. It takes people to come up with such testing and technologies to try and achieve ideas to manufacture better, so yes this is not only jobs being lost, but innovation as well. Section 2: Financial Impact of the Penny’s Absence If the penny were to cease production, there would be many undesired consequences from this action that would be counter-intuitive from the Pro side, but would quickly become devastating realities for the general public. Intrinsically, if the penny were to be removed from production, there could be no way to sustain prices realistically without rounding to the nearest 5 cent piece. Millions of transactions are managed every day in the United States, and with 28% of Americans either not owning a savings/checking account, or trusting on payday lending services[3]. With this data, the amount of cash/coin trades each day is purely not dismissible, not withstanding that cash is used in 46% of all transactions in the U.S[4]. Demographics with comparatively low incomes (predominantly the young, elderly, and minorities) use cash more commonly than people with higher incomes. Because only cash dealings will be subject to rounding, any move to eradicate the penny would be regressive and hurt these demographics of Americans who have no other choice and do not possess the means to make non-cash transactions. According to one report[5], the Treasury would essentially lose money without the penny. First, the Mint's construction and circulation costs include fixed elements that will continue to be incurred whether or not the Mint manufactures the penny. The report approximates this fixed component at $13 million (2011). In addition, there is $17.7 million in operating costs apportioned to the penny that would have to be engrossed by the remaining denominations of circulating coins without the penny. Moreover, under present Mint accounting, the nickel expenses eleven cents to produce (and the nickel isn’t even being targeted in this debate). In a scenario where nickel manufacturing doubled without the penny, the study determines that with current fixed costs, abolishing the penny would prospectively result in increased net costs to the Mint of $10.9 million, compared to the current state of manufacturing. Section 3: Proposed Solutions As I previously stated, there are better ways to resolve this debate, and the best way is to make the penny worth 1 cent again. In 1982, the United States changed the composition of the penny to reduce manufacturing costs, and such similar solutions can be found again in contemporary times, ending an outdated 30-year solution. An option that could sustain such reduction is costs calls for a core of some sort of ceramic material, with similar heft as zinc[6]. Ceramics are metal-based and consequently much denser than plastic, though not as heavy as metal itself. Ceramics could be made from 2 inexpensive compounds: silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3, or possibly with a bit of denser oxide such as titanium oxide added for weight. The ceramic penny core likely could be anodized with a copper skin fairly cheapl, thus no longer requiring the use of zinc to manufacture our pennies. Section 4: Current Trends Over the past couple years, the prices of the metals needed to produce the modern penny have actually decreased. According to a report from the Department of Treasury[a], after attaining a peak cost of 2.41 cents in 2011 due to the substantial growth in global metal prices, the cost of manufacturing has dropped to 1.83 cents for 2013.[4] In the 2014 fiscal year, the cost to yield a penny fell additionally to 1.70 cents.Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) has introduced a bi-partisan bill to mandate the use of steel in the manufacturing of pennies, dimes, and nickels. . Research has shown this bill could save the U.S. government up to $2 billion in material costs over a 10 years. References: [1]: http://www.export.gov... [2]: http://legacy.utsandiego.com...; [3]:http://www.forbes.com... [4]: http://www.frbsf.org...; [5]: http://financialservices.house.gov... [6]: http://www.livescience.com... [7]: http://riponadvance.com...;","The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) This is a RD 1 debate for Kleptin's tournament, and I will be assuming the role of Sportsguru from the following debate: . http://www.debate.org.... Feel free to peruse it prior to reading this one. Sportsguru will, in effect, be opposing himself (or at least arguments inspired by his own). Hence, if you see chunks of text directly quoted from the above-cited debate, I'm not plagiarizing. :) I affirm, resolved: the penny should be immediately discontinued. No definitions were provided within the referenced debate, and the topic was assumed to mean that the US should stop minting pennies as a form of currency. This resolution does not require me to do anything extreme, like pull all current pennies from circulation (hence the use of \"discontinued\"). We'll stick with that interpretation. Any others would be considered extra-topical, especially in light of the purpose of this tournament. Onto case: 1. Pennies are a complete waste of critical resources. a. For all its use within the American economy (i. e. next to none), the penny is produced at a cost to the U. S. Per the group Citizens for Retiring the Penny, the U. S. Dept. of Treasury produces approximately 7 billion pennies (worth $70 million) each year. The cost to make all those pennies was around $100 million. [1] As Sportsguru predicted a year ago, this cost is only rising. ABC World News reported in 2008 that the cost of minting pennies is right around $130 million. Each penny produced costs the U. S. 1.7 cents. En total, the U. S. loses around $50 million during the penny production process. [2] Talk about ill-advised spending. In times like these, with a global recession, a U. S. economy in the throws of a depression, poor government spending, and the public quickly losing faith in the ability of its elected officials to properly money-manage, this gesture, though relatively small, would be a step in the right direction to much needed expenditure examination. It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U. S. b. The transaction time in penny exchange costs the U. S. economy further. Though we don't often consider the time costs of a monetary exchange involving pennies (or change, for that matter), we should. Efficiency is a primary concern of a struggling economy, and any step toward improving efficiency while maintaining a just system should be taken. The National Association of Convenience Stores as well as the Walgreen's drug stores assert that transactions involving pennies waste approximately 2-2.5 seconds per cash transaction. That may seem like a pittance , but the resulting wasted time is exponentially terrible when considered on a national scale. I won't bore the readers with the calculus here, suffice to say that each American wastes around 2.5 hours every year on penny transactions. This would be mirrored in all consumer industries that take pennies within their transactions. If we then calculate the opportunity cost per person in the U. S. (i. e. what that 2.5 hours means in dollars in terms of salary), each person in the U. S. \"pays\" the government around $30-$40 just to keep pennies in circulation. Granted, some of that can be factored into the original production cost of $150 million (through taxes), but considering that the opportunity cost adds up to closer to $10 billion per year for the nation, pennies cost much more to keep in circulation than their production value. Though this $10 billion may seem like a tiny drop in the heaving, \"perfect-storm-esque\" sea that is the national debt, imagine the programs that can be funded on that money each year. 2. Increasing out dependence on China (and other foreign countries) is detrimental to both the domestic and foreign interests of the U. S. As is well known, China currently possesses the highest concentration of utilized zinc resources in the world. [3] Furthermore, they are actively trying to corner the market on this particular resource. Just this year, Chinese zinc giant Metallurgical Corp of China is seeking to bid on Anglo-American Zinc, worth approximately $1 billion. [4] If this acquisition is completed (which it likely will be), China would successfully purchase a huge chunk of the American industrial market, which is crucial because the US currently has the second highest concentration of zinc resources in the world. But, you might ask, why don't we just produce the zinc ourselves? Easy answer: we import because companies like Anglo-American can't undersell our foreign competitors. This is evident at the sale of Anglo-American. What's worse, it appears that Anglo-American will be controlled by a country other than the U. S. The other major bidders are all out of the country. We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy. These expenditures further damage our political capital, as we appear weak and unable to control our domestic affairs. Furthermore, as is clearly illustrated by the U. S. political lobby system, indebtedness translates directly into policy compromises. Considering China's current state of affairs, do we really want to compromise influence that we might have over, say, their human rights abuses? In conclusion, for the good of the nation and its citizens, I strongly urge a vote in favor of eliminating the penny. [1] . http://www.retirethepenny.org... [2] . http://abcnews.go.com... [3] . http://www.mapsofworld.com... [4] . http://www.reuters.com...","The Penny The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies. .. Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year. Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore. Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line. Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first.","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished I highly disagree here I can get rid of old Abe I just can't no I wait for the arguments","Convert the penny!!! The proposal to eliminate the penny has been a major issue ever since its cost of production exceeded its value. You claim that it currently costs 1.3 cents to make a penny. The numbers I've seen were a bit lower, stating that it costs around 1.23 cents. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the penny's cost of production does indeed exceed its value. The negative seignoirage value does cost the government money in terms of producing the penny. However, the economy is not solely, nor even mainly based on the cost of producing legal tender. The economic consequences of eliminating the penny would be disastrous, and in comparison to the possible and probable effects on the economy, the loss of $150 million in production is a minor one. The elimination of the penny would consequently make the lowest possible unit of currency 5 cents. This would lead to an adverse effect on consumers. When a purchase is made and the sales tax added, the final number would not be rounded up to the penny, but rather the nickel. This leads to a negative effect on consumers. This \"rounding tax\" as many economists call it, would lead to a cost of approximately $3 billion over the course of five years according to some numbers. This is much higher than the $750 million lost to producing a coin with a negative seignoirage value for a time span of five years. The penny must be retained for the good of the overall economy. The cost of production is minor compared to the consequences.","Pennies should be abolished Pro has the BOP.If we used nickels, Americans would pay a \"rounding tax\" of about $2 billion to $4 billion per year [1]. But Pro wants to abolish nickels, so that tax would surely be much higher. This neutralizes any benefit that comes with the cost of making pennies. Poor people who make small purchases are hurt, as are charities that use penny drivesNext, pennies are sentimental. About two-thirds of Americans want to keep the penny [1]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...","The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. If the U.S. greatly reduced the number of pennies manufactured, they might as well just cut production. In conclusion, I believe penny production should be cut because: a. They are practically worthless b. They are losing value c. Waste of time and space d. Cost more to produce then they are worth e. Pollution f. They cause money loss for citizens too Thank You","Get rid of pennies Resolved: The US government should stop minting the Jefferson nickel and assign the Lincoln penny a five cent value in its place. Due to the rising, and risen, costs of metal, minting change is more expensive than ever. A Jefferson nickel costs almost 8 cents to mint and the Lincoln penny about 1.25 cents. Normally, the government makes profit by minting money (seigniorage), paying production cost and recieving face value. But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007. So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents. This not only saves the 3 cent and .25 cent loss for every nickel and penny minted, but creates a profit gap where the new Lincoln nickel makes the government 3.75 cents per coin. This begs the question, how would we handle cash transactions without a cent piece for precise change? Following other countries like Australia, we would instiute a rounding system, where cash transactions are rounded to the nearest 5 cents. (1, 2, 6, & 7 round down; 3, 4, 8 & 9 up). So, not only would the American taxpayers save hundreds of millions of dollars, we wouldn't have to deal with those one cent nuisances anymore.","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Actually pennies aren't unless as you think and if you get rid of it the poor pay the most - the poor will be affected the most, because they are most likely to make more frequent, smaller purchases, thus suffering the rounding up more often. And Nickels cost even more to make, If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.","In the US, pennies should be abolished. 1. Forex Trade/Stock Exchange will not crash. The cost is not only rounded down/up, but a combination of both, depending on how close the cost is to the nearest 5-cent increment, which could actually cause a boom in forex/stock. 2. Nickels can also control inflation with lest cost to the government/mint. Pennies cost 2.4 cents to make, and are worth 1 cent.","The Penny Rebuttal: 1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument. 2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not. 3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument. Other Rebuttal :D: 1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy. 2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway. 3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency. Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel. Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win!","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished I would love to pour out all the reasons why pennies should be abolished, but I need to save some of them for my closing arguments. First, it's not worth your time for pennies. Literally, if you pick up a penny off the street, you could have made more money in that exact frame of time. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage for all occupations is $16.87 per hour. Do the math, and that means a tiny bit more than a cent is earned every 3 seconds, and 5 cents every 11 seconds. This clearly shows how little the value of the penny is. Ignoring that, the U.S. could save money by getting rid of the pennies. According to the U.S. Mint, it costs more than 2 cents to create one penny. This means that the U.S. is losing tons of money by creating pennies. Also, a single penny can't buy you products anymore. The only machine at all that accepts pennies is... ...Coinstar. Coinstar is basically like an ATM, but only for coins. I have at least two more legs my opinions stand on, but I'll save the best for last.","The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. I feel as though you are just repeating your argument over and over instead of debating both of our views and opinions. Greatly reducing the amount manufactured has quite different outcomes as retiring a form of currency. With the reduction they will still be in use and all of our old pennies (literally billions of dollars worth) and not make them obsolete like they would be if the penny was retired. In rebuttal to your conclusion: a. They still do have a use however (keep costs at more of an exact number) b. Which is why we re-create the penny out of new materials. New materials = new value if done correctly c. Not necessarily, they are used in almost every single purchase we make. d. Like I've already stated, make them out of cheaper more abundant materials e. Another thing you never gave me a response to my response about... Find a less toxic material that can be used in the creation of a new penny f. Whatever money they are taking from us for pennies they could easily put into something else like the salary for those in government. I guarantee that if they cease production of pennies that they will not take less money from us, they will just find a new place to waste it. Yep.","We should get rid of the penny If you check the link you literally just copy and pasted it...and also first round is acceptance. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but in all honesty I doubt you know much about this topic as you just copy and pasted it. Thanks for accepting my debate though! Also welcome to debate.org (oh and just to clarify by we I mean the US)I will state my arguments for keeping the penny.Argument 1- It costs more to make a penny then it is worth [1]It costs 2.41 cents to make one penny, and approx. 7.4 billion pennies are made each year [2], so do the math and we are wasting over 10360000000 pennies a year, or 103600000 (over 100 million), dollars a year on pennies alone. This is money that could be spent much more effectively, like on public schools! (Another source I found said pennies cost 1.7 cents to produce, which would still equal to over 50 million dollars lost)Argument 2- We already went along fine without something worth one cent [3] According to popular youtuber Hank Green \"..in 1972 a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, and yet in 1972 the economy managed to function just fine without a coin that was worth 1/5th of a penny.\" It has worked before, it will work again.Argument 3- They are uselessMoney could easily be rounded to the nearest fifth, and are simply not worth the time and effort to take out and fiddle with exact change[1]http://www.usmint.gov... (at the bottom of the page)[2]http://coins.about.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com...","The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. I understand your views and where you are coming from but I have to disagree. If we were to simply just stop the production of pennies just think of the changes that would have to be made to our country economically speaking. Taxation would have to be adjusted to a numerical value system based off of our remaining coins which are all multiples of fives, causing potential increases in how much and how we are taxed. Theoretically speaking, what would the cost for a cheap item with a tax of one cent be changed too? Would we just have no tax on it or would we just round up to five? It's a large amount of work to be done when there is another solution. Instead of simply \"stopping the production of pennies,\" I feel that we should change the materials of a penny or the size. Having different cheaper materials put into the penny would lower the costs of the penny and with the cessation of the current penny model we would see a very small increase in the value of the current penny. The copper penny as we know it now will become an older form of currency increasing it's value amongst collectors. Just like much other older forms of currency, after production is stopped and less of the currency is around, the more valuable it becomes. The other solution I stated before is making the penny smaller. By doing this we won't be putting as much material into it, and less material equals less cost.","Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. 1. Well that's great, but I don't really care that you use pennies for garage sales. (Wait, garage sales are still a thing? Really?) Considering that we're thinking in terms of actual businesses and services. 2. It's just a 1 or 2 cent difference, I doubt that's much of a problem.3. Hey, I don't like the nickel either, but lets be real here; it's impossible to think we can actually get rid of the nickel.","The USFG should eliminate the penny When the Baby Boomers were young, a penny still had some value. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research group, reminisces in a 2013 anti-penny screed about paying a nickel for an ice cream cone as a boy. Even during my childhood in the 1980s, there was a candy store not far from our house that sold \"penny candy\" in jars \" one penny for a mini Tootsie Roll, or two for a Mary Jane. Today, there\"s literally nothing you can buy with a single penny \" and you can\"t do much else with it either. Vending machines don\"t accept them, and neither do most parking meters. Even automatic toll booths won\"t take them \" except in Illinois, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln, whose face adorns the coin. And if a single penny is useless, a whole bunch of pennies isn\"t much better. If you try paying for something in a store with a fistful of pennies, you can expect dirty looks from both the clerk and the other customers \" if the store doesn\"t just flat-out refuse to take them. Pennies are so hard to spend that many people don\"t even bother \" they just store them all in jars, or even throw them away. Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University argues that pennies are simply no longer useful as a means of exchange: \"When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.\" There are precedents for getting rid of coins that are too small to use. Back in 1857, the U.S. Mint stopped producing halfpenny coins \" which, according to the historical information calculator at MeasuringWorth.com, had a purchasing power of $0.14 in 2015 dollars. So at the time it was eliminated, the \"useless\" halfpenny could buy as much as 14 pennies can today. If consumers in 1857 could get along without halfpennies, then modern consumers can almost certainly manage without a coin that\"s worth less than one-tenth as much.","Get rid of the penny!! True, the government makes more money in seignoirage than it loses. Still, just because the government makes money overall, doesn't mean it shouldn't cut out a losing endevour. The present system of nickels and pennies still loses over $150 million a year, regardless of how much it costs to make bills. If we adopt the plan, thats an extra $150 million dollars in the government's pockets that isn't adding to the deficit. Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost. Your second objection is that we need pennies for transactions etc. But, transactions are already rounded. When you buy gas, the price per gallon isn't $3.59, but $3.599. Thats what that miniature number farthest to the right on the sign means. So, rather than rounding off tenths of cents, we would be rounding off full cents. Some argue this would lead to a 'rouding tax' where buyers are robbed of pennies on every transaction. But, a study was conducted, and simple logic would show, that out of the countless transactions performed everyday, there are an even number of transactions that would round up and round down, leaving the monetary advantage null. So, we should abolish the penny because they are personally annoying, and would save taxpayers $150 million dollars a year without effecting transactions.","The penny should be immediately discontinued. Okay after a long hiatus, I am back again and ready to rumble. I must unfortunately begin with the almost obligatory request that voters vote for whom did the better debating rather than with whom you agree with. With that out of the way I will first present my case before moving on to my opponent's. 1. Direct waste of money According to Citizens for Retiring the Penny (http://www.retirethepenny.org...) , the U.S. Mint produces about 7 billion pennies ($70 million) every year at a cost over $100 million. Thus, we directly lose at least $30 million a year producing the penny. And with the rising cost of zinc, that deficit will only grow. 2. Waste of time (= indirect waste of money) The National Association of Convenience Stores and Walgreen's drug stores estimated that pennies waste 2 to 2.5 seconds per each cash transaction. If we estimate that each person goes through two of these transactions per day (which seems rather low) and that on average there is one person waiting in line (which once again seems low). This makes for 3 persons' time to be wasted (cashier, penny finder, person in line). We can then calculate that the presence of pennies wastes (2 transactions/day) X (2 seconds/transaction) X (3 people per transaction) = 12 seconds per day, or 1.2 hours per person per year. Of course, when you get home you still have to find something to do with your pennies, meaning that probably only about half of the wasted time is directly connected with a cash transaction (the other time is associated with counting pennies etc), giving a total of 2.4 wasted hours per person per year. The mean wage in the US is approximately $17/hour, implying that each of us is effectively \"paying\" $40 per year to keep pennies in circulation. Given that the US has ~ 240 million adults, using pennies is currently costing the nation $10 billion per year. Thus, the penny costs us $10,030,000 per year. While this may seem small compared to the total national debt, every little bit helps. In fact, if no cost cutting measures were taken other than retiring the penny, the current debt would be erased in 959,619 years! 3. China dependence The reason for influx of the price make pennies is the main ingredient: zinc. And guess who is the world's largest exporter of zinc… you guessed it: China! With every penny we make, we further increase our economic dependency on China. So retiring the penny would also make our economy more independent. Now to my opponent: My opponent has one argument: that the nostalgic value of the penny cannot be ignored, comparing it to various monuments in D.C. I will contend the actual nostalgic value in a second but first we must see that keeping the penny could in fact result in the end of it. As I have shown, we are losing tremendous amounts of money due to the penny. This annual loss helps push our economy helping to lead to a recession or a depression. When you have depression, countries are in danger of breaking apart. If the U.S. were to cease to exist so would the penny, so either way we lose any nostalgic value. Now I contend that there is no value to the penny. Considering that 58% of people save pennies rather than spend them, the new penny philosophy seems to be the one found in this Ashfield comic: http://www.ashfieldonline.com... rather than the one my opponent is indicating. As I have shown why the penny should be discontinued I bid adieu until my opponent responds.","Get rid of the penny!! My opponent claims that the penny costs more to make than it's worth. However, the government would not lose money overall, since a $20 to $0.04 deficit in the case of a $20 bill would outnumber the extra $0.003 it costs to make a penny. The penny is also very important for the sake of providing change and paying sales tax. For example, say you want to buy a double cheeseburger from McDonalds' dollar menu. In some states, the sales tax is $0.06, bringing the total cost of that burger up to $1.06. You would need to pay with a $1 bill, a nickel, and a penny. Unless you pay with, for instance, a dollar and a dime, in which case the cashier would need to use pennies to pay you back in change.","In the US, pennies should be abolished. I. The Penny costs more than the mint makes it forMy opponent has wasted this round. Look very closely at everything he wrote. He restated his original contention, and I did not argue it, because it's true. The fact of the matter is, even though the US will save a couple million, it will lose 10's of billions.I will give my opponent one more round to not drop my points. The con's far outweigh the pro's in this debate, which are miniscule. I will address the point regardless. The Canadian strategy was to increase and keep inflation above the USD. As soon as they removed the penny, the inflation of the CD fell extremely far. It went from being .06$ more than the USD, to being .09$ below it.Canada is a perfect example of a nation who was hit hard by removing the penny.Do not waste my time in a debate, by droping all three of my contentions","The United States should cease production of the penny Full Resolution: The United States should cease production of the penny.","The Penny 1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny. 2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement. 3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5\" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it. 1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5\" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year. 2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income. 3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument. Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars. Sources: 1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm 2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html 3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win","The United States should cease production of the penny I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41\" to make a 1\" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny.","The penny should be stopped from circulation !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! ! !","Gettin rid of pennie's Just because the penny will be soon forgotten and people will not care about it after awhile does not mean that it must go. The penny and other discontinued change have been forgotten these day's because the people hve been forced to forget! It's gone, no more of it and common people have no say to bring it back to life so they forget. The other chnge that hs been discontinued like the half penny, was just a smll part of the money business, except the penny was a big part, it filled in anywhere when you did not have the extra, Exmple would be an item cost's 2.87$ well you could use a toonie, three quarter's, two nickel's, and a penny. The penny was a steping stool for learning how to count money, it was easier to remember the one plus one plus one... And now the little children are expected to count by five's straight off when they learn about money, it will be hard, plus they will have to learn the rounding you'r supposed to do of a price if it's in need of a penny. Don't forget the old foak's either, like they say you can't teach an old dog new trick's.","Get rid of the penny!! \"Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost.\" Maybe I'm reading this quote wrong (please correct me if I am), but in that quote, you state, \"...nickels would be worth more than cost.\" However, in this next quote, you state: \"Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel.\" Thus contradicting yourself and the idea of profiting from the disposal of the penny. As you say, \"the monetary advantage [is] null.\" Therefore, what good is disposing of the penny? You still haven't showed me an alternative for transactions from change and tax, as demonstrated in my McDonalds example. The only solution I can think of is changing the price of everything to end with a change value of a multiple of 5 (i.e. $1.25, $1.50, etc.). This would not only be costly and tedious, a flat sales tax would have to be adopted by every state ($0.05, $0.10, etc.). The penny should not be abolished, because it is necessary for sales transactions, and would do more harm than good.","Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel RULES OF DEBATE The rules are very simple. I expect a pleasant, semi-formal debate. Please consider these rules if you plan to accept this debate: Participants of all ages and experience are welcome to accept this debate. However, I expect my opponent to behave and take this partially serious. I want us to have fun and have a factual debate. No vulgar language and or personal attacks. I don't expect this to be an issue but I feel I should mention this. The first round is to be for acceptance only. These three rules should be followed or defeat will be considered by default. They're not very difficult and I expect you to follow them.BE IT RESOLVED: that the penny and the nickel be eliminated from production in the US Mint. Good luck to my opponent (whomever you may be) and I look forward to this debate!","Should the penny be kept in US currency Many economic breakdowns have resulted in the collapse of countries. My opponent clearly said we could get over it however may I argue that the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the world at that time, experienced an economic collapse. This crisis was one of the key factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russia. Next comes lack of military. Any \"ripple in the world of money\" can cause a serious impact on the military. As I speak the US is in war with ISIL, and having an economic crisis will not benefit us as all. The penny also should not be taken from the US currency because, as you said, we might have to resort to credit cards, but remember this. Many shops don't accept credit cards, the shops will experience a downfall in what they can do, and many places will go out of business, causing more and more to do the same.","The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service I have not debated on this website for a long time. Glad to be back! Moving on, this is the debate of the topic: \"The US Penny Should be Taken Out of Service.\" The first round is simply for acceptance. Rules: 1) No trolling/semantics. 2) No offensive content/swearing 3) Keep arguments within the spirit of debate/no personal attacks. In the event of a rule being broken by either side, it will result in an automatic loss. I eagerly await an opponent.","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good.","Pennies should be abolished Pennies are a waste of time and money. For instance, according http://www.usmint.gov...;, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny, along with the nickel should be abolished in production.","The US should abolish the penny The problem with pennies as stated in my first argument is that pennies are no longer convenient. Even after that penny in the $0.99 transaction is returned, the penny will most likely end up in a jar dead to the economy not fulfilling its role as currency. The fact that machines such as Coin Star exist that take advantage of the inconvenience and uselessness of pennies to make money off of people just proves my point. Many businesses and organizations recognize the cost of transporting and counting the pennies isn\"t worth it. One of these organizations includes a little organization known as the United States Military, where in overseas bases have banned the use of pennies. They also contradict your definition of consumerism as because those who use exact change to pay for items waste the time of those waiting and overall, the rate at which things are sold decreases. There is a simple answer as to what happens after the penny is abolished. There are many countries around the world including New Zealand, Canada, etc. that have gotten rid of their lowest unit of currency and ended up fine. None of these countries have saw high degrees of inflation or drop in charitable donation. The US could easily take after those countries. Also this sort of process isn\"t anything new to the US as we went through the same process when ditching the half-cent coin in the 1800\"s for the same reasons we should ditch the penny. Abolishing the penny would actually do it good. As the amount of pennies decrease as they are melted, lost, etc. their value begins to increase again. Take a look at the half-cent coin now and they have more buying power than the US dime. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://factually.gizmodo.com...","Get rid of pennies Roadmap- I will go over the benefits of the penny then refute my opponents arguments. C1) While individually pennies are not worth much, over time they add up. A) In 2002, Gallup polling found that 58 percent of Americans stash pennies in piggy banks, jars, drawers and the like, instead of spending them like other coins. Some people eventually redeem them at banks or coin-counting machines! So many Americans actually do use the penny. B) Furthermore, the penny is used to raise money by charity organizations. People who would not be willing to part with a larger bill are often willing to give up Pennies. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has raised 150 million dollars through its \"Pennies for Patients\" program over 15 years. Without the penny, this cancer research would not have been possible. C2) Pennies help fight inflation \"We think the penny is important as a hedge to inflation,\" says director Mark Weller of Americans for Common Cents. \"Any time you have more accurate pricing, consumers benefit.\" Small business owners and small purchases rely on the penny. Loss of the penny will create inflation and price instability. http://www.offthekuff.com... C3) The rise of credit cards defeats the purpose of rounding coins. The common complaint about pennies is that they are inefficient to use. Credit cards however operate by computer. They can handle as many digits as needed. As credit cards become more common, pennies will be used less. So these disadvantages become less noticeable. Onto my opponents case \"But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007.\" First, I would like to point out my opponent provided no sources for this claim(or any claim he makes). The argument should be discredited on that basis alone. Second, the federal government has a budget of three trillion a year. 100 Million dollars would be .0003 percent of the yearly budget. This would have a virtually unnoticeable effect on the budget (It would save everyone money in the pennies, which as my opponent has abolished would result in no benefit for most tax payers). This is significantly outweighed by the extra money a 99 cent purchase would now cost (1 percent). http://www.wallstats.com... \"So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents\" This part of my opponents case would have a significant negative impact on the economy. Suddenly, every penny a person owns would quintuple in value. The amount of money in the US economy would change. Assuming Congress was even considering passing this bill, there would be a mad dash by consumers to acquire as many pennies as they can. This would create much instability in the market place. In summary, I provide 3 reasons we should keep the penny in circulation, disprove the only reason my opponent actually gives to abolish the penny(100 million spent) and prove how his implementation would hurt the economy far more than it would help.","The Penny Should Die. Hello. My name is AppleAddict439, and i thank the challenger for accepting this debate. Let\"s start in 1792, with the first U.S mint. Back then, pennies were made out 100% copper. There was no zinc in the actual penny. But, the market changed. The value of copper went up, and, due to inflation, the value of the penny went down. After that, the penny became almost completely zinc. Then, in 2006, the old pennies were found to have a value above 1 cent, so people began to melt them down to make a nice, tidy profit. Then Congress decided that pennies were actually worth something (they\"re not) and passed a law against melting U.S currency. So, let me get to the data. Math time! Each second, the U.S mint produces 1,040 pennies a second, 30 million pennies a day, and (as of 2016) produce 13,000,000,000 pennies each year. 13,000,000,000!!! But, for each cent we make, we lose a little bit of money due to the fact it takes (as of 2016) 1.5 cents to make 1 cent. Now, you may be thinking: \"Wow. really makes a difference. 0.5 cents lost for each penny. That\"s so much.\" Actually, if you thought that, you are partly right. It is so much. After 13 billion pennies were made this year, with 0.5 cents lost for each penny, that means that in 2016 we lost 6,500,000,000 dollars to the penny making franchise. Now, we could be using that money to fix U.S debt and the U.S deficit, but no. We have to make pennies. Pennies are bad for us and bad for the U.S economy because: Say you want to pay for a 20$ toy. That\"s 2000 pennies you have to carry around\" Pennies add, on average, 2.2 seconds to each cash transaction, which causes a 1 billion dollar loss in money each year due to productivity costs. If you want to spend your precious pennies, it will be hard. For example, vending machines, laundromats, tollbooths, parking meters, newspaper machines, or telescopes. Pennies, essentially are DEAD WEIGHT in cash transactions. So, there are probably the penny diehards who are listening to me reading this that are thinking: But\" It\"s never been done before! We\"ve never removed the penny, nor have others!\" Well, that\"s wrong. New Zealand, Finland, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have removed their one cent coins or pennies. They now round to the nearest 5 cent. But- others say-we\"ll remove Lincoln! That would be oh no: UNPATRIOTIC. Well, Lincoln is still on the 5 dollar bill, and- get this: some military bases round to the nearest 5 cent. To put it simply in the words of CGP Gray: Pennies waste money, waste time, are a money fail, and are worth less and less each year due to inflation. And that's it. I Look forward to the next round.","Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. I think that the production shouldn't be stopped because for one, in a way, it kinda makes things easier. And taking away the penny would make things more expensive change wise also. and EVERY store EVERYWHERE would have to change the price tag on everything so that the lowest change number was 5 cents","The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service To start this debate, I'd like to define some of the key terms and state that I am con, firmly arguing why the US penny should not be taken out of service. Definitions: Penny Taken Out of Service: All pennies within the United States will neither be minted nor accepted as legal tender. Plan: As I am Con, it is not my job to address a plan, so the plan must be addressed by Pro. Burden of Proof: Here, I'd like to establish a 3-pronged burden of proof for Pro. In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must prove the following three items: 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. If any fragment of these three items is left unproved, then I, Con, will win this debate. Arguments: I would like to bring 2 major points into this debate. Argument 1: Economical Harm The US penny should not be taken out of service because it will harm the economy. Even though it is only one cent, the penny is extremely important in the way the US economic system works. How can we achieve the same amount of exactness in change and payments as we do with the penny? The only answer is rounding, but that is detrimental to the economy. According to pennies. org, propositions take the penny out of service and utilize the nickel as the coin of lowest value create public anxiety about higher prices and inflation. Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) are concerned that merchants would raise prices without the penny. And, most likely, they are correct. Professor of Economics at Penn State University Raymond Lombra, Ph. D. said to a Congressional committee that rounding cash sales up or down to the nearest nickel would cost consumers over $600 million annually. For example, you are a merchant who runs a clothing store. You charge $11 for a t-shirt, and the sales tax in California is 7.5%. You have a customer, and he/she pays in cash. The amount comes down to $11.86 with the sales tax. But, wait\" you have no pennies! How do you get the extra cent when there are no cents? The only answer is to round the price down to $11.85, but then you're losing a cent! When the penny is taken out of service, multiply this example by millions per day, and, as Raymond Lombra puts it, $600 million is now lost per year versus when the penny was still in service. $600 million dollars being lost just from taking a coin out of service is an extremely significant amount that cannot be ignored. A whopping majority of 77% of the general public is worried about taking the penny out of service. Without the penny, the the general public will lose money and the US economic situation will worsen. Argument 2: Charities The US penny should not be taken out of service because charities need pennies. There are a plethora of small charities that depend on penny drive to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily. Many corporations, national charities, schools, and local philanthropies have realized the worth of the penny. Through the use of point-of-sale collections, penny drives and competitive penny fundraisers, these groups have turned thousands of idle pennies into real dollars for everything from college scholarships to cancer research and housing for the homeless. One major example is Pennies for Patients, and without pennies, it would be nickels for patients, but that doesn't sound good! Pennies always have a worth to someone no matter who he/she may be. Pennies rescue people battling terrible diseases such as cancer. Pennies can save lives. College scholarships and cancer research rely on pennies. We, the opposition, want the best in the future, and the best is not to eliminate the penny.","That Pennies Should Be Abolished The purpose of currency is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services by providing a good with an agreed upon value that can be traded for a multitude of other goods. As Pro in this debate I will argue that pennies are failing to fulfil this purpose. The context of this debate is present day United States. For this debate \"penny\" refers to the one-cent-coin. The model I am proposing is that the US mint simply stops producing any more pennies. All pennies currently in circulation are to remain as legal tender. However, after their expenditure shops are to send their pennies back to the US mint where they will be melted down. This means that the supply of pennies will gradually decrease. Price transactions are to be rounded to the nearest five cents. RulesThe opening round is for acceptance only. I will give the Pro case in the second round. Standard debating rules apply, they are as follows: 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 5. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R5.5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.","The penny should be immediately discontinued. I will attack his case first then defend mine. 1st Cont:It is a waste of money. when you think about it food is a waste of money as well. Why should we pay thousands a year to other people/countries to grow food when we can grow it ourselves? So pennies are a small waste of money, but was it a waste, once again, to build the monuments? 2nd Cont:They are a waste if time. If they are a waste of time why do we continue to make them? We make them because they help to even our money transactions. We can't just round everything to to nearest nickel, because then half of the products would be MORE expensive then before, therefore wasting cash as well. We need the penny to help keep the current prices steadier then they would be otherwise. 3rd Cont:We would lessen dependence on China. Maybe we would but then we would relie more on the countries making the other ingredients for other coins, like steel(iron), nickel, and we would still need alot of zinc. 4th Cont:Penny has no value. The 58% of people who save them are saving them for a reason...to spend them! Therefore, more money into the economy in a bigger amount. and the whole germ situation, that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Dollar bills are made of linen, a very easy-to-contaminate cloth that holds even more germs then the penny, therefore if we went off hygiene, we hould eliminate currency altogether. O.k., now i will defend my case. Argument, the U.S. would be in danger of breaking apart. The penny will not be the reason for the destruction of the U.S. The trillions of dollars of national debt will do it. Those amount grow by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.","In the US, pennies should be abolished. I. Forex/Stock ExchangeMy opponent still does not get it. Rounding up to the nearest 5 cents adds up. Lets say a investor buys 500,000 stocks worth 7.13$, and we decide to remove the penny. If the nickel is rounded up .02$, then the investor loses 100'000's of dollars. Likewise, if we decide to round the penny down, then the seller or company likewise loses 100'000's in equity.II. Inflation ControlYou can control inflation with any kind of currency. The difference between controlling it with a nickel and controlling it with a penny is vast though. Using a penny can round down a inflation percentage to the nearest 0.1. This can help the economy and the world market tremendously.You might as well just kill the banking industry if you're going to round to a nickel, not to mention the federal reserve will crash, and with it, billions of corporates. III. Just make the penny cheaper My opponent has not considered simply removing more silver, zinc, or copper from the penny. Instead of removing it and costing the nation about 100 billion dollars, we could just lower the materials we put in the penny as they leave the US mint. Actually, we do every few years. The penny gets cheaper and cheaper overtime, and the reason the mint is keeping it 2.00$ now, is because we have a inflating economy.Soon the value of the penny and its cost will equal each other. Come on people. Let's not pull a Canada here.","Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.","Should the penny be kept in US currency If we take away the penny (and the nickel), we will be back at 1947. This was shortly after the Great Depression ended, and if we don't have smaller coins (the lack of small coins prevented us from getting out of this terrible event), a whole new Great Depression could appear. That's not just a ripple, that is throwing us seventy years behind the rest of the world, and it will be difficult to get out of that. We may have to devote to rounding. $2 bills are to $20 bills, as $1 bills are to $10 bills, same with $5 to $50, and $10 to $100. The two dollar bill helps our economy as much as a twenty dollar bill, which is why we are coming towards it. The two dollar bill will boost, and all taking away the penny can do is throw us behind the rest of the world. This will cause our taxes to be lowered, which means less money on international relationships, which means, debt that can't be paid off, lack of military. These things will make the US vulnerable to the outside forces. Good luck!","The Penny I will be arguing that the production of the penny should continue. I look forward to a fun and informative debate. Good luck!","Should the penny be kept in US currency Believe it or not, the nickel costs more than it is worth to make too. If you think you're on to something, we'll be increasing our currency by 10x, which usually leads to economical fails. As most people know, a failing economy is not a good sign, and we could be minting trillion dollar bills before we know it!","The Penny Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.","The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished You should not eliminate the U.S. penny! First of all If we eliminate the U.S. penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor! Costing us more for everything we buy. Last Charities need pennies, alot can add up from pennies and that helps people because most likely people going to give away their pennies because it's 'cost less' to them.","Stop the Minting of the American Penny I believe that the American penny, for many reasons, serves no real purpose in our modern world, and we should cease minting it as soon as possible.First round is for acceptance only.Definitions:American Penny: the one cent coin currently used for the USD (United States Dollar, $).Mint: to make a coin.","The Penny This debate is about wether or not the penny should countinue being made in the United States of America. As con I will argue that penny production should be ceased, as pro you will argue that penny production should countinue.","The penny should be immediately discontinued. When you think of America you think of things like the Statue of Liberty or the sunn beaches of Miami or LA. When it comes to symbols of america though, it is hard to beat the iconinc penny. it is the commenest coin in America and is therefore easy to recognize when you see a penny in the newsparer or ont the internet that it means haing to do with currency. We cannot simply get rid off the penny. That is like blowing up the Lincon Monument or toppling the Washington Monumet. It just simply isn't even thought of.","Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised!","Stop the Minting of the American Penny Contrary to the original post, the penny does actually provide a real purpose in our modern world. And not only this, this debate has been won by the Con side throughout various times in our nation's history. There exist many jobs in the zinc and zinc-related industries that produce these pennies, as well as transportation jobs in relation to delivering pennies to various institutions. By ceasing the production and minting of the penny, we see many of these jobs that would be otherwise lost. These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. In 1982, these pennies were made from brass, and were also engaging in a higher production cost. However, in this year, zinc was used to provide 97.5% of the composition of the penny, with the thin copper plating on the outside of the coin. Initially this saved the government millions of dollars, but we have seen recently the rising prices of zinc. It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. Hypothetically, if the cost of ink and paper exceeded $1, would we eliminate the dollar? If it exceeded $100, would we tell all the Benjamin Franklin enthusiasts that his likeness and portrait will be less commonplace? Of course not, as there are many materials that can be made to provide coins and currency, and the re-visitation of such denominations is a sufficient way to address such concerns. As another example, in 1943, the Mint produced pennies made of zinc-coated steel to conserve copper for military use, yet we still kept the penny as a valid denomination. So conclusively, the point is not to abandon the penny all together, but provide steps to reform the concentration and the composition of the material that we use in making such a denomination.","The US should abolish the penny I believe that the US should abolish the penny for multiple reasons. The person who accepts this is in support of keeping the pennies.","Should the penny be kept in US currency The penny may have sounded like a good idea when It was invented, but except for certain transactions of \"$22.01\" it isn't necessary. The penny costs more than it is worth to make! Sure, it would cause a ripple in the world of money, but we can get over that!","Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. I think that pennies should stop being produced by the U. S. mint and taken out of circulation, similar to what Canada did. The penny costs more to make then it's worth, it's rarely actually used. It's a detriment to our economy.","Should the penny be kept in US currency The removal of the penny will cause an economic breakdown, sure. But so have many other things- and we got over it. The penny is soon going to be obselete, along with most other coins and even bills. Technology is growing by the minute. Credit cards are a more efficient way of payment, as compared to it.","Should the U.S. keep the penny I think we should keep the penny, because if not then yo momma will have to raise her price to a nickel. And what yo momma gives me is only worth 3 cents. So yo momma would be getting a free 2 cents every time she services me.","Gettin rid of pennie's Reasons why pennies should be eliminated. Other Countries Have Successfully Done without TheirsMany other countries have eliminated several small denominations from their currency with no major impact on commerce. New Zealand, for instance, dropped their one and two-cent coins over 20 years ago. They have, since then, eliminated their nickel as well.We\"ll Conserve Natural ResourcesWe\"re more aware today than ever that the minerals we mine aren\"t going to last forever. Ceasing production of pennies will lower our consumption of copper and zinc, as well as the fuel and energy required to mine and process it.It Will Increase in ValueHistorically, dropping any minted coin out of circulation immediately increases its value as a collectible. So, in 2020, all those pennies laying around the house will be worth more, and will continue to gain value as time passes. Many collectors are already starting to collect lots of pennies, taking more out of circulation.Nobody Misses the HalfpennyThese days, very few individuals realize that the US once had a half-cent coin. That\"s because it was taken out of circulation in 1857. Given that phasing out this denomination had virtually no impact on commerce, there\"s no reason to think that dropping the penny will have any serious side effects.","The penny should be stopped from circulation I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.","Should the penny be kept in US currency Let me make this clear. I said an economic breakdown HERE, meaning the U.S. The US is much more capable of recovering from a breakdown than the Soviet Union. Back on topic, my closing argument is that the penny is outdated. The time has come for it to be removed, naturally or by force. New forms of currency, like the $2 bill are becoming more and more widespread. A penny is just something that you throw on the ground, forget about. The making of the penny should be stopped, although to prevent an economic breakdown it should remain as a legitimate form of payment, usin the penny's already in circulation of the U.S."],"string":"[\n \"Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. I watched the video, but I do implore that pro actually types out his own arguments.Contention 1: Penny is Useless?In the video my opponent brings up states that the penny is useless. But here's an interesting thing. I actually find pennies and then use them at garage sales where it is easy to use and people do not have a problem with it. Contention 2: Sales TaxIn today's world the sales tax is used and important in the US. Currently the sales tax varies across the US (http://salestax.avalara.com...) But where I live the sales tax is 7.3%. Let's say I go to McDonald's and buy a Dollar menu Cheeseburger. The total would be $1.07. Where I would have to pay with a dollar, a nickel, and 2 pennies. Or I could do a Dollar and a dime, but then McDonald's would need 3 pennies to return to me. A huge thing that the video my opponent is that the sales tax will be rounded up to the nearest 5 cents (at 3:09 in his video). This will cause prices to hike up and more people will be unable to pay for things. (http://coins.about.com...)Contention 3: NickelAnother key thing my opponent misses is that when the penny falls out of contention that the Nickel will cost more to make and the cycle will just continue to go on and on. The nickel costs 7.7 cents to make and when you do the math the US mint can make 5 pennies and still save more than making 1 Nickel. (http://coins.about.com...)\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals.\",\n \"The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins This sure has been an exciting debate. I shall now proceed with my rebuttals. A1, A2, A3: I am going to rebut this case with another argument Pro has put: A2: the cost of producing coins. Sure, if you don't keep them, pennies are useless. However, if we are going to be super miserly, saving up pennies for years will eventually get to some big amount of money. You can choose one of these arguments. Also, the third argument would be good if people were incredibly exact about time. The thing here is that some people aren't. There are misers and there are people who don't care. This would argument only appeals to some. The new system: Well, it comes down to this: Some people would see this as a great opportunity to save money. If the price would be rounded up, you'd pay online. If it's going to be rounded down, pay in cash. I'm not so sure how many people would do this, but with 742 million people in Europe [1], there's bound to be a significant amount of people who do this, leading to a lower national budget (or one of the other cases I mentioned in the previous round). Evidence: I thank Pro for making this round easier for me by choosing examples of countries that are on a decline in national budget [2][3][4][5][6], furthering my proof that getting rid of the one and two cent coins lowers the budget. The only country that isn't on the decline is Denmark [7]. So, is it doable? Yes. Will it lower the budget? Yes. I now pass the debate mike to Pro. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 4. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 5. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 6. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 7. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished This debate is a redo of one of my previous debates. If you wish, you may view that one first to get the gist of my opinion. However, I am adding the rule that you may not quote anything I said in that debate for the duration of this one. This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good\",\n \"Gettin rid of pennie's Briefly perhaps, but most of the information that passes through the brain is permanently forgotten. If the brain recorded moments like a tape recorder, then it would be theoretically possible to produce a transcript of every sentence you ever heard in your lifetime: every statement spoken by a professor in every classroom, every line of every movie, every mundane comment made over breakfast across tens of thousands of meals. The brain is specialized for processing information, not recording it. The ability to form any kind of episodic record of the past is fairly recent in brain evolution. And even still, eye-witness testimony is among the most unreliable types of evidence there is. No one is forced to forget anything, it is just a change in history, along with New Zealand. If you double the halfpenny, it is just as worthy as the whole penny. You can still teach children how to add, maybe with fractions. (e.g 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5) Its not that hard to learn how to round, as for the elderly well if they are that aged, I don't think that that specific elderly would be paying his/hers bills. If you feel that,the penny elimination is important to you, and that you have no say, you might want to start a partition.\",\n \"The Penny Arguments 1. I don't fully understand my opponents argument here. It cost 1.8 pennies to make one Penny so you actually loose the repeat use because, before there was 1.8 pennies and now There is one penny. My opponent argues that now you can reuse the penny making it worth it. Well not exactly, every time you make a new penny the value of the old ones less. Just because the penny last longer don't mean it's still not a waste, every time the government literally spends money to make less money the citizens are taxed to make up for it. I don't agree that the reuse adds value either because even if paper money needs to made more often it still cost less by proportion. 2. My opponent agrees that the penny has no buying power. 3. Ahhh... To the good part. To get the price just right the cash has to be divisible by smaller units so you don't over pay. But it cant be divided forever because at some point the value it represents becomes to small to buy anything with or to bother with. Yes there is nothing to make that up with but eventually it just doesn't matter anymore. Whats the point of exact change if you cant buy anything with the change? You would need 25 pennies to buy a ball of gum if the machines actually excepted them. Rebuttal 1. It will takes some work with fixing up prices, but the simplest method would be by rounding the prices (with tax) to nearest five cents or maybe fixing the sales tax percentage. 2. I don't think there will be a shortage of money towards the Salvation Army or any charity for that matter. If on average for every five donators, three donators don't give any money but two give them nickels instead, the Salvation Army just made twice as much. Another point is that one penny again really doesn't make a difference, if two thousand people brought one penny that would be twenty dollars and honestly wouldn't help homeless people at all. 3. Nickels are rarely used and are bad for the economy so I probably would, but I haven't done enough research to confirm this and it's best to take one thing out at a time. If you ask about sources I'm planning on putting them on the last round, I anticipate your next argument and wish you good luck :)\",\n \"The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Maybe instead of simply cutting the production, we greatly reduce the number of pennies manufactured each year, use a much more readily available (non-toxic) resource, and possibly offer to anyone who brings in their copper pennies (to be refined and used where it's more needed) an equivalent in U.S. currency with the new form of penny. It seems like a lot of work but I still believe all the changes to taxes and the effects on economy are much worse. With your stance on how they should be \\\"retired because they are practically worthless\\\" there are some problems as well. You said there is approximately 13 billion pennies produced each year which equals 130 million dollars worth of pennies. If they were retired then that would be 130 million dollars wasted on their production each year that they've been produced. So retiring them is not a very viable solution. With this I back my main two ideas of reducing the number produced and making them out of cheaper material (but still keep the old copper pennies in use).\",\n \"Convert the penny!!! For those interested, Professor Raymond Lombra from Pennsylvania State University published an analysis on the economic effects of eliminating the penny. The article is entitled \\\"Eliminating the penny from the U.S. coinage system: An economic analysis.\\\" This article was published in the Eastern Economic Journal, 2001, vol. 27, pages 433-442. Here is a link to the article for those that wish to read it: http://findarticles.com... In this article he shows that the rounding tax is not a myth, contrary to what my opponent has claimed. He furthermore demonstrates that it would be an economic disaster. And unlike the article by Robert Whaples, this one appears in a peer-reviewed journal. In almost any field, a peer-reviewed article is given much more credence than an article that is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, he describes the methods and provides data. This is something that is conspicuously absent from Whaples' article. The penny must be kept!\",\n \"The United States should cease production of the penny Much of this argument will be tied into convincing those who are reading, and can vote. But, like the penny those who cannot vote, still have a valued by opinion in this matter and can be counted by their comment. The penny\\\"s value is beyond its own self-evident worth it will be proved to be a reflection of our labor. The penny holds a liberty which serves and greater good and is worth in its added cost beyond face value. 1.The Penny is a part of an impartial system of measurement and as a part of the system it is expected to be held as part of its measurement and value. Not a just cost and value. When it shows a negative number by its own profit. It is a part of the overall machine showing wear or abuse in that system. The penny is simply just .0001% of a dollar. The measurement outside of its well-known value is a direct relationship to our method of keeping time. Its transposition is to the ten-thousands by volume. 2.The pricing of metal makes it profitable to harvest pennies out of an economy. The obligation behind all taxation is immediately to the United States Connotation Separation process. The removal of the penny means an instant pay raise for inappropriate spending. Spending which should have been going to safeguarding the harvesting of United States Private Property, its penny and the value by weight of metal. The pennies copper or metal is incapable of self-regulation. The Federal Reserve Note in line behind every penny most certainly has this ability. It only fails when squandered elsewhere. 3.The penny is an economic indicator to inflation it is part of a clock system. I have recently started argument that the national Debt Clock is indeed inaccurate. Part of the inaccuracy is how it aligns Debt spending by its lowest value. The mistake is in increments. The lower values in debt accurately run backwards as mentioned in my opening reason the penny has a negative transposition valued at Ten-Thousand. The hard thing to want to take is this measurement is for loss not profit. In the Axiom of GOD we TRUST, the reason for this somewhat obscure logic all people want to know about the possibility of loss first as an indication or warning. 4.The pennies worth for harvest was not always 1 cent it was driven by inflation. When the pennies is gone that means the nickel is next in the line of inflation driven harvesting. Instead of 1 cent it will be .05 cents which is taken. The Government has always operated by rounding up to the nearest .05 cents. To justify this action which can destabilizes an impartiality, how any-one can say this action of round up has improved cost is hiding the examples of its overall performance. After all the Governing body has been collecting four times more than the rest of the Nation and the rising spending provides us with a quarter or less in stability or progress.\",\n \"The US should abolish the penny I would like to thank Forthelulz for accepting this debate On to my arguments: Argument 1: Pennies are a waste of money As of now it takes 1.7 cents to make a penny when a penny is only worth 1 cent. Because the US makes billions of these per year the costs add up. In 2014, around 8,146,400,000 new pennies were made that year. Take the cost and multiply it by the amount of new pennies circulated in 2014 and you get 57 million dollars wasted every year to keep alive this dead currency. That is money that could be used for better things. Even if the cost of pennies were reduced if they were made of something that represents their true nature like plastic, this does not solve the fundamental problem with pennies. Argument 2: Pennies fail as currency Let me build a scenario, you want stuff from a shop keeper. Rather than bartering like savages, you use money as a means of exchange. That is what money is meant to do. Money is used as means to facilitate the transaction of goods. Pennies fail to meet this function that because they are very inconvenient to use. For example, try to pay for $10 worth of groceries with 1000 pennies in your pocket. Even if you just pay in exact change pennies still prove an inconvenience. When you get to the counter and fumble with getting the right amount of pennies, you waste other people\\\"s time. Pennies not only make transaction of goods more frustrating and inconvenient but in many cases, they also fail as a mean of transacting goods. Say you rather not waste people\\\"s time and go to a machine to take your pennies and return a good or service. However such machines are virtually nonexistent. Toll booths don\\\"t accept them, vending machines don\\\"t accept them, parking meters, laundry machines, or anything else because they aren\\\"t worth the time and effort to count, transport, and store them. The only machine that exists today that accepts pennies is Coin Star. It is but a leech on the economy that takes 10% of your hard earned cash and returns 90% of money that you should already be able to use. Back then, pennies could actually buy things, but the rising cost of pennies and inflation ultimately makes pennies a useless currency and the reason why most pennies end up in jars. Conclusion: Because of the cost of the US penny and the fact that it fails to facilitate the transaction of goods, we should move on and abandon the penny. Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"The Penny First off, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you. The United States's money is based on a basic cents system, with 1 cent being a unit. The value of the dollar has dropped nearly 80% in the last few decades, and prices have inflated to new highs. Very little can be bought with pennies, and yet they should not stop production, even at the cost of 1.8 cents per cent. Refutations: 1. Pennies cost 1.8 cents to make, which con points out is more then the penny is worth, but does not consider the value of repeat use, especially by something as durable as a penny. Estimates on how long a penny last range from 20-25 years, going through thousands of exchanges, each time adding value to the actual cost of producing the penny. In the end, the penny stimulates the economy far more than the 1.8 cents they cost, lasting 25 years compared to the dollar bill's 18 months of existence. (1) 2. While I disagree that paper money was to make things easier to buy, con is correct, little can be bought solely with pennies. Although I will go into it extensively later, paying with pennies is not their use, but instead is for reaching the exact cost of something. 3. Machines do not accept pennies, as they are not taxed and always round up to a clean number, something prices in stores would not do. As for their usefulness, I would argue that when one pays in cash, just as many or more pennies are exchanged then any other type of bill. Almost any price will come out with tax not a perfect five cent round. If something costs 4:53, you have to add an additional 3 cents, only payable with pennies. If you pay with a five dollar bill, then you will receive at least two pennies in change. There is nothing else you could make up that difference with. Arguments against: 1. If the penny was eliminated, it would make pricing things nearly impossible. Unless every price is rounded to a five cent mark, the only thing you can pay with cash is pennies. Add ever-changing tax to that cost, and it is almost impossible to price anything. Con claims he can refute this, which I will hold them to. I am yet to see a good refutation to this point, and I will be impressed if con has one. 2. Many charities work off pennies, either receiving all their donations or a large percentage of them from pennies alone. Such charities include Habitat for Humanity, World Wildlife Fund, and the Salvation Army. These charities and many more rely on pennies, because of people's willingness to part with pennies. (2) 3. The nickel's value has dropped just as much as the dollar and penny, are rarely used in purchase, and nickels cost 11.2 cents to produce. (3) Would you have them eliminated as well? What nonsense. No, nickels are similar to the pennies, and the arguments are valid for both. We work on a cent system, and eliminating the one cent and five cent are fiscally ridiculous. I will begin with this. Good luck, con! (1) http://www.factmonster.com... (2) http://www.pennies.org... (3) http://www.businessinsider.com...\",\n \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Before I begin, I'd like to point out that Pro lacks actual arguments, he/she simply posted refutations to what I said, which, in my opinion is not enough to win. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Minting Cost My esteemed colleague has stated that, as of 2011, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. However, I'd like to point out that they have cited a source from 2011. As of 2014, pennies only cost 1.7 cents to make, down 2.4 cents from 2011 (. http://blogs.wsj.com...). Therefore, the evidence shows that the amount it costs to make the penny is actually on the decline. Soon, it will not be much of a loss for the US to make it, meaning that there is not an adequate reason to abolish its use. Refutation 2: Debt \\\"Removing the penny is only good for debt\\\" is what Pro states. I strongly disagree as we will lose $600 million/year with the rounding system as earlier showed in my first argument. The United States' debt recently hit $18 trillion, and I believe Pro and I have a common interest in lowering that debt. However, the solution is not to take the penny out of service. Also, after this statement, Pro brings up a source and says that the US will save 7.6 trillion dollars/year without the penny, yet he/she fails to provide any reasoning behind this. It's just going to happen. .. somehow. .. I don't think so. Therefore, Pro's case has one more flaw. Refutation 3: Economical Harm Refutation My mistaken opponent stated that the penny will only affect cash transactions in response to my argument about economic harm. However, they have ignored a chunk of the argument in saying this since the source I stated about the $600 million a year being lost is talking about cash purchases. (Here's a link: . http://pennies.org...) Therefore, Pro simply danced around my argument instead of actually attacking it head-on. Refutation 4: Charities Refutation A contradictory statement made by Pro is \\\"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel. \\\" This is like saying \\\"People like beef, but they'll like chicken better sooner or later. \\\" Therefore, It is a contradictory statement that cannot be proved. To expand on my charity point, pennies are better than nickels for donations since pennies are worth less, and, because of that, people donate more, which eventually becomes more money for the charities. If people donated nickels, they would be more stingy with how many they gave. Refutation 5: Canada \\\"We use\\\" and \\\"As a Canadian\\\" are two prime examples of phrases used by Pro that prove his/her misunderstanding of the topic. If I may reiterate, the topic is \\\"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service,\\\" not \\\"The Canadian Penny Should be Taken out of Service. \\\" Pro fails to use any American examples and is under the delusion that the Canadian economy is exactly the same as the United States economy, proving another point for Con. Refutation 6: Burden I gave Pro a 3-pronged burden of proof and, so far, no prong has been fulfilled. Let's break them down individually. 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. Pro slightly dances around this by saying that it costs a lot to make a penny, but never follows through, and I have already taken this down earlier. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. Pro has not mentioned anything whatsoever about this prong. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. Pro never even brings up a clear-cut plan. Sure, they mention things like \\\"the penny plan\\\" and \\\"the plan,\\\" but what is this plan? The world may never know, or at least not myself and the voters since Pro has not mentioned this. Here is a statement made by Pro: \\\"I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport. \\\" If he/she does not agree with my terms (they actually were originally outlined since the first round was for acceptance), then why didn't Pro attempt at refuting them? As an Instigator, it is assumed that I have the burden of proving my point. I already have proved my point, yet Pro has not proved his/hers since he/she has failed to meet his/her burden. I completely agree that it is up to the voters to decide, this burden is a mere aid for the voters, saying that if Pro does not have these three things, they can't win because their case is not sufficient to prove their assertions. Conclusion: Because of Pro's ignoring of evidence, misunderstanding of the topic, outdated evidence, and inability to fulfill his/her burden, it is clear that Con is currently the front runner in this debate.\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. For reader/voter convenience I will go in the same order my opponent does Cont. 1- In order for this response to have a chance to hold water, my opponent first must prove that the United States indeed has the resources necessary to grow enough food for the whole nation. Until my opponent gives proof of this, the food portion of the response must be ignored. If we do not have the facilities to do so, then importing food is certainly not a waste of money as it helps ensure the continuation of the nation. As far as the monuments go, the point of having them is to commemorate the various historical heroes of our country. My point is that we are paying extra money to keep the penny when there is no reason to keep it other than your suggestion of the benefit nostalgic value which I have shown not only to be outweighed by the harm of economic down-fall but that it in-fact does not exist. And as I showed in my first contention, the penny is NOT a small waste of money. Cont. 2- My opponent forgets that the other half of products would go down in his hypothetical situation. However, this is not a viable situation unless stores never changed pricing strategies, sales tax would be eliminated, and people never bought more than one item, all of which randomize rounding. In fact, a recent study(http://www.wfu.edu...) confirms that the effect of rounding would be neutral. Cont. 3- Here my opponent drops that we would lessen our dependence and that that would be beneficial, thus those points stand. He goes off into an illogical point that we would become more dependent on countries making the ingredients for other coins. I ask how is it possible that lowering the need of zinc heightens the need for other metals. Cont. 4- I am sorry, there has been some misunderstanding. When I said the penny has no value, I meant nostalgic value. The stat with 58% saving and the germ reference were simply to point out that people think so little of the penny that they not only put them away rather than keep to spend them but germs actually become a bigger part of the decision of whether or not to pick up a penny off the ground than the value of the penny, actual or nostalgic. (Besides that money \\\"poured back\\\" into the economy would just raise inflation.) Last paragraph- Please note I never said that the penny would be THE reason for an economic recession, just a contributor. My opponent concludes by saying that the amount of debt grows \\\"THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.\\\" Considering that I have proven that the penny costs us BILLIONS of dollars and this has remained uncontested, this only strengthens my argument. Now, I must wait for my opponent's closing statements.\",\n \"Stop the Minting of the American Penny Thanks to con for relinquishing the last round, and for joining me in this debate.If we look at con's fifth source, which s/he used to stress his/her belief that the US will lose money, we see in exactness why Rodney Bosco, the author of the article, believes this to be the case. Mr. Bosco states that getting rid of the penny, a coin produced with money lost as a result, would \\\"...increase demand for the nickel, which is also currently produced at a loss\\\" (p.2). While this is true, simply keeping the penny and changing the contents of it would not be an adequate measure. Perhaps changing the nickel's contents, a coin that has ten times the buying power of the penny, would be (or we could get rid of it too, but that's for another debate, I suppose). Even using the multi-ply plating technology would not be enough. To stress this point, Bosco said that such technology has \\\"...been successfully used by the RCM to manage circulating coinage for Canada...\\\"(p.3) - a country that even with this method got rid of their penny three years ago as of this May. I must stress that the penny's content is something that can be changed, but is not worth changing when considering how low its buying power is.As for the argument \\\"you don’t see people abolishing the car…. Or milk,\\\" I don't see this as a perfect comparison. Cars provide fast and effective transportation, and milk has nutritional value. Pennies, on the other hand, don't provide the services that they should. Even the argument pertaining to those who use cash to pay for things doesn't have much basis, and I'll explain why: the part about rounding up goes against what I've already said about the myth of the \\\"rounding tax\\\" back in Round 2. Most places that have gotten rid of the penny round both up and down, and it's worth mentioning that no significant effect has been shown to the economy and there has been no significant or noticeable rise in prices nor, for that matter, has there been any decrease in charitable donations [1]. It is also worth mentioning that people who are poorer and would use money more are statistically more likely to donate money to charity.Finally, I would like to say that the amount of money earned back from reforming the penny does not reach how much we have lost, as attested by my argument in Round 2.I thank con again for joining me in this debate. Vote for pro.Sources:[1]:\",\n \"In the US, pennies should be abolished. I. Pennies are used to control inflationI don't think the OP understands why we have pennies. It's not to control prices, per say. It is to control inflation rates. Let me explain. Pennies have low value, being only .01$, which means we can pump however many out we need to control inflation to the number. It is the most precise way to control inflations rates.If you control inflation rates, you control prices. If you control prices, you control how much consumption and investment goes through the economy. With that said, it is 100% neccesary to have pennies for monetary control of the economy.II. Forex Trade will CrashThe Opposition needs to take into consideration the volatity of FX trade. Currecy exchanges are very profitable to the US. Here are two reasons why removing the penny would crash USD exchange over FX.1. We can not control the USD to ensure ultimate deals by trading USD over Forex.2. Foreign traders will be forced to round to .05$, decreasing the amount the USD gets bought and sold.III. NASDAQ and the Stock Exchange will be hurt NASDAQ is the national stock exchange of America. The opposition has not thought this out. Most stocks are rounded to the penny. For example. Green Energy Co. sells stock for .13$, or the stock of Speedwat right now is 18.14$. The problem with abolishing the penny, is that all stock purchases need to be rounded up to the nearest .05$, which for investors who purchase 1000's of shares monthly, this will completely hinder their investments.That .01$ adds up, and with the stock market up 140%, this would be the worst possible time for the US to remove the penny.\",\n \"The United States should cease production of the penny In this speech I will be showing that my opponent's arguments are flawed 1. My opponent relates pennies to time, and shows how it correlates to time. My opponent does however, not show a correlation since their is no explicit or implicit link that they make between time and pennies. In fact, the average person who pays with pennies will spend 2 seconds extra per penny at the register. That means that my opponent is exactly wrong, pennies in fact take our time away. 2. There is no cost for ceasing production of the penny. Although my opponent may have misunderstood the resolution as pennies are now not accepted, the resolution simply asks whether production should be stopped. As I stated in my case, pennies actually cost billions of dollars a year to manufacture, so this argument falls. 3. Yet again, no link is made between the claim and the proof. My opponent states that pennies are economic indicators, but offers no evidence, either objective or analytical. This means that this argument should be ignored due to the lack of support. 4. The resolution clearly states ceasing production of the penny and not removal of it as legal tender, so this argument is also not relevant. 5. I am not sure what my opponent is attempting to claim, but it appears that they are claiming hackers steal pennies by the 5. We can safely assume its irrelevance in the matter.\",\n \"Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Sorry about the late response, to my arguments.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth.2. Other countries have done it with success.3. We've gotten rid of coins before.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth. The cost to produce a penny is approximately 1.83 cents to make, and it is only worth 1 cent. This being so the government loses $55,000,000 doing this transaction. [1] Although this is basically zero compared to the current national debt, it would be a good start in lowering the debt.2. Other countries have done it before.Finland, New Zealand, and Canada have all ceased making one cent pieces for transaction [2]. They have all done this without harm to their economy, and it has gotten easier to make transactions with cash, as prices are rounded to the nearest 5 cents for cash users. (credit users still use one cent numbers, but they don't need pennies). [4]3. We've gotten rid of coins before. We used to have a half-cent piece, but that had lost all of it's value. The dime even is now worth about as much as the half cent was, so it is time to change. [3] [4]Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [2] http://coincollectingenterprises.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [4] Video http://www.youtube.com...\",\n \"The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. The background provided by weirdman in undoubtably true. No denying history. However, he contended that \\\"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \\\" On the other hand, my point was that the penny possessed such negligible value today such that the economy is actually losing money manufacturing it and where a dime is worth a penny during 1970. One can imagine the value it may have possessed in the past but that is not the point of this debate. It is about the penny now. (Please correct me if I am getting your point about the penny being of personal value incorrect. )The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \\\"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but I have to acknowledge that the penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful. \\\" Greg Mankiw, EconomistI agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. Another popular belief I forgot to mention is the one my opponent brings up. Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. My opponent mentioned that 15.5% of the American population is of the lower class and therefore would have problems. However, that means that 84.5% of the population is of the middle or upper class. Take a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \\\"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \\\" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. I thank commentor \\\"Janus\\\" for bringing up a relevant question. No, we would not round to the nearest bill. My point was the we would eliminate the penny. Therefore, we would round up and down accordingly to mathematics and thus, prices would statistically cancel out. Sources used in the previous and current post:(1)KNS FINANCIAL 16 March 2011<. http://www.redeemingriches.com...;(2)Lewis, Mark. \\\"Ban the Penny. \\\" Forbes. com 5 July 2002. 8 February 2006<. http://www.forbes.com...;(3)Kahn, Ric. \\\"Penny Pinchers. \\\" Globe. com 9 October 2005. 10 February 2006<. http://www.boston.com...;(4)Saffire, William. \\\"Abolish the Penny. \\\" nytimes. com 2 June 2004. 3 November 2006<. http://select.nytimes.com...;(5)Weller, Mark W. Letter. Unpublished letter to the New York Times. Americans for Common Cents. 7 Nov. 2006 <www. pennies. org>(6)\\\"Abolish the Penny? A Majority of the Public Says 'No'\\\" The Harris Poll #51 15 July 2004. 8 March 2006<. http://www.harrisinteractice.com...;(7) \\\"President Bush signs Lincoln Penny Redesign Into Law. \\\" Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 22 December 2005. 8 March 2006<. http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov...;\",\n \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport:\\\" The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market.\\\"\\\" Taking the penny out of service will minimalist harm the economy.\\\"\\\"Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\\\"As of 2011, it costs 2.41¢ US (or $0.0241 US Dollars (USD)) to make a penny, making the coin's face value less than its actual value. http://www.wisegeek.org...This fact alone is sufficient enough to justify removing the penny from the market, or more correctly simply stop creating them as this is the more efficient plan. The reason that this is bad, other then the obvious, is that it increases the national debt in a pretty useless way. Removing the penny is only good for debt. Without the penny the government estimates it will save 7.6 TRILLION dollars in just ten years. http://www.enzi.senate.gov...Argument 1: Economical HarmI don't think you quite understand the \\\"penny plan\\\". As a Canadian (with a diploma in business) I have witnessed this plan first hand. The consumers worried that their $19.99 product will increased to $20.00 need not worry as it will stay at $19.99. The penny only effects Cash transactions, not electronic. all debit, gift card, credit card, cheque, etc. will be handled as if there is a penny.As for rounding of pennies the cost of using cash normally does not change. We use a complete rounding system, not a rounding up system as you implied. This means that $1.01 and $1.02 would be rounded down to $1, while $1.03 and $1.04 would be rounded up to $1.05. If you play close enough attention to your pennies you can actually save money by only using cash when it is time to round down, but not much. http://www.cbc.ca...Argument 2: CharitiesThe penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly over shadowed by the nickel (5-1). There is no evidence that suggests people who donate will simply stop donating because there is no penny. In fact donations may rise because people \\\"have\\\" to give more then just a couple pennies. Furthermore Charities in Canada held drives to collect the \\\"worthless\\\" pennies once they where discontinued. http://theotherpress.ca...\",\n \"Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. I will be debating for stopping the production of the penny. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!\",\n \"The US should abolish the penny Okay, dropping a few definitions of my own, not conflicting with any Pro provided. Hope Pro doesn't mind. Consumerism - the theory that an increasing consumption of goods and services is economically desirable. Instant gratification - The consumer receiving the good/service immediately or in an expedited manner upon paying for it, instead of a delay. Definitions adapted from merriamwebster.com My argument for keeping the penny is a simple one. Not everyone has a credit card. There are those of us who have to make do with the money in our pockets when we go spending. The penny allows for cashiers to make change more easily. For example, a $0.99 item (after tax) is being paid for with a one dollar bill. Well, the change for that is... wait for it... one penny. Sure, that is a specific example, but still, convenience. For reference, consumerism is still alive and well here in America. The penny, as it is now, is a medium of exchange, legal tender, for all debts, public and private, here in America. An announcement of an attempt at abolishing the penny would result in an uproar unless it coincided with a sporting event. The way the debate statement is phrased, abolishing the penny would cut down on the money supply a bit, but so would contractionary fiscal policy. We are paying 1.7 cents per penny for convenience. Sure, there are downsides, such as a bunch of pennies being really heavy, but they have machines like Coin Star* for that. You are paying for convenience when it takes 10% from your monies, but you can now get bills and nickels on up, and drop the penny in the chain's pet project charity of the week's box if you so desire. The term for such a thing is instant gratification. Another example of instant gratification from our daily lives is fast food, such as In-N-Out or McDonalds. You get your food very quickly, allowing you to resume your life sooner than if you went to a sit-down restaurant. There are those that would say, \\\"Hey, fast food is cheaper than sit-down.\\\" Yes, that is true. However, fast food can and does serve more customers overall, which means they can have lower prices, to attract more customers. Yet again, In-N-Out would be a prime example of this. A better example of instant gratification would be the one-day or two-day shipping options when shopping online. \\\"You want this thing? You want it now? Pay a little extra to get it!\\\" As far as I can tell, *This, and all the other examples given aren't advertising; I'm just using the examples I know. A very good question for those penny-punters (not pinchers) would be \\\"What then? Do all existing pennies become worth the alloys they are made of?\\\" Chances are, they just saw an example of waste and wanted to smite it, initiate sweeping reforms, and get a statue (made of smelted pennies or something pretentious yet awesome like that) somewhere. A buyback program would work... up until pennies don't show up in multiples of five. Would we round up or round down in such a case? If we round up, we're throwing money at people. If we round down, we're taking even more money from people. If we round up, the government loses in the short run, which is bad for the politicos, but good for the people. If we round down, it looks better on the balance sheet for that year, but a lot of people just lost a few pennies. Admittedly, people would probably lose less than they spend on a cup of coffee on any given day, but there would still be a bit of outrage, and outrage is bad for the incumbents. And now the rambling bit that I really should write better, but because of reasons, I only had twenty minutes to write this, because of a prior engagement that I should have remembered earlier that, fortunately, let out early. Wishing wells and/or the Uncomfortable Truths Well would have a lot more nickels, dimes, and quarters in them. We already have issues with fractions of cents. Don't make it worse by getting rid of the penny. It's easier to use a Coin Star, take it to the cashier, and deposit it in a savings account than it is to do a buyback. How much change do you have lying around that you won't find for a couple years? How long is the aforementioned buyback program in effect? Which way was it going again? Were they rounding up or down? Will it simply take place at a bank, or will there be specialized facilities? All of these are legitimate concerns. In conclusion, the penny is still a viable medium of exchange and store of value. By all means, we should keep it around.\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Okay, man, it has been a while since I've done this. I thank Kleptin for organizing this tournament, and alto2osu for this debate challenge. Without further ado, let us begin (As a brief roadmap, I will go down my opponent's case before my own). Interpretation- This is a reasonable interpretation, and the one I intended when I originally made the debate. Thus, I agree and there is no clash here. 1a. I cannot deny the cost of zinc in the world. However, alto2osu makes it seem like the discontinuation of pennies is the only action to take, with the net benefit of public confidence in the economy through reform. However, we can see that the elimination of the one-cent piece would actually LOWER consumer confidence, as the German Finance Ministry stated for the introduction of the one-cent euro piece [1, page 8]: \\\"If a euro one-cent coin were not introduced, public opinion might regard this as a sign of weakness in the euro and confidence in the stability of the common European currency might suffer as a result\\\" Also, this is not the only option to solve this problem. At the point where the cause of this cost is from the metal it is made from, primarily zinc, we can see that it is much more beneficial to accept the following counter-plan: \\\"The United States should change the metal that pennies are made out of\\\". Not only does this solve my opponents first point, but it has the net benefit of avoiding the harms of the negative case that is to come. 1b. Again, while the case my seem to be against the penny, the actual cost of a cash transaction comparatively is not the wasteful picture my opponent paints. When stores calculated the cost of each transaction (in time, armored courier costs, etc.), they found that cash transactions, including those with pennies, were the cheapest by FAR, whether it be per item, or in total transactions [1, page 6] Also, I searched for this report by the NACS that you claimed, but I could not find it. I'm not saying you are lying, but could you please give the source? 2 First, cross-apply the counter-plan. If the penny is not made out of zinc, we don't have this \\\"problem\\\". Secondly, we must see that even if this sale happens, we do not become more \\\"indebted\\\" to China. This is simply one company selling itself off. Ok, we don't have the world's biggest deposits of zinc. Therefore it makes sense we are not the biggest producers; this is not apocalyptic , just common sense. \\\"We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy.\\\" Can you prove this? Where is the bright-line between us being able to operate freely and not operate freely? On human rights, we already have NO influence on China in the issue of human rights, nor do private businesses as shown with the recent tiff between China and Google. In fact, China shot back at the US calling the US hypocrites for criticizing China.[2] Neg case (other than impact turns): 1 Direct Impact. If one were to get rid of the penny, obviously one would have to round prices to the nearest nickel. While seemingly insignificant, this causes a huge price to be paid. Due to the disproportionate amount of items ending with 9 and certain other numbers [1 page 3], a $600 million \\\"round tax\\\" as Lambra calls it, would be paid by each consumer yearly simply because of this rounding. If we are going to talk economic impacts, this forced extra spending that does not actually produce benefit is simply going to leave consumers with less disposable income, meaning less spending which means a slower recovery if not another recession. 2 Long-term-Inflation. Long term impacts do not look any better. The rounding that would occur would negatively affect governmental spending. Using data from the congressional budget office, Lambra calculates that government spending would be up by 2 billion JUST by this rounding. Note that this was is 2001, when the economy was actually good and our spending was not that high. With the higher spending we have today, the artificial rise would just be that much greater. 3 Stores- Finally, we can look to the affect on stores. After taking into account the fact that cash transaction is the cheapest transaction to make, we can see that this rounding would run stores out of buisness. At a 1998 convention, the NACS stated that the average profit per transaction is about 6-7 cents [1 page6] Thus, a two-three cent rounding would take about 30% of a store's profit basically kicking someone while they are down. Also we can look to the threat deterrence of pennies. Without pennies, exact change is more likely to be had. At that point, the register does not have to be opened to procure change and the employee can just pocket the money. With pennies, this is MUCH less likely to happen. For all these reasons, I urge a vote in negation. 1: http://college.holycross.edu... 2: http://www.reuters.com...\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. Once again, same order 1st cont: he seems to have failed to remember that the entire world used to run off the crops they themselves grew, not by other people. And when/if we start importing food, IT WILL COST MONEY, and lots of it, therefore outweighting any small amout we might be overpaying to make the iconic penny. 2nd Cont: Now onto the whole roundung situation. How many products do you see that are like 19.05 or 13.24..little, if any. Most produts are such prices like 19.95, or 14.99. in face maore then half of all products are that way, not exactly half, therefore NOT neutral. 3rd Cont: I did not drop it, i proved we would just switch our dependence from china to other countries, or possibly even stay on china. and if we get rid of all the pennies, then we are going to need to replace them with nickels and dimes. and whatabout when they get too expensive to make, do we get rid of coins until its all bills, then work our way thruogh all the bills until we are all using hundreds to buy a gallon of milk? 4th Cont: The germ issue applies even more to bills then to pennies, once again, bill are made of linen a very easy cloth to contaminate with batcteria. 5th Cont: If it cost BILLIONs of dollar to make pennies, then that must mean the same if not even more with nickels, dimes, quarters, ect. So, in conclusion, i beg you, don;t get rid of the penny, it would be just as unpatriotic as ripping up the Lincon monument, or toppling th eStatue of Liberty.\",\n \"Convert the penny!!! The United States Government should stop produce current Jefferson nickels and replace them by making Lincoln pennies worth 5 cents and cease a $.01 piece of currency. Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel. Seignoirage allows the government to profit off of minting currency, but only when the coin costs less to produce than its value. For instance, the $20 bill costs about 4 cents to make. Due to the negative seignoirage value, the creation of nickels and pennies adds to the federal deficit by a considerable amount. We produced over 7 billion pennies and 1 billion nickels, COSTING the government and taxpayers over $150 million. By stopping the production of Jefferson nickels and substituting them with Lincoln pennies, the cost of the new Lincoln nickels drops 6 cents and halts the production of approximately 6 billion coins, greatly reducing cost. I'm happy to address further concerns in the next round.\",\n \"We should get rid of the penny I will be taking pro for this argument, I think wer should abolish pennies, con takes the point of view as if we shouldn't.\",\n \"The United States should cease production of the penny 1.To understand the penny's value you must look at time, as the penny equals the second, and how it relates to trade within it, to know the penny is not just the .01 cent you are giving up in an economy, it is the seven numbers .02, .03, .04, .06, .07, .08, .09 in a clock. The time increase can be seen in seven new numbers. That increased will run .05, .10, .15, .20, .25, .30, .35 .Who among us really needs less time? 2.The cost of discontinuing the penny will instantly mean a direct sale tax increase across the boards. As these determinations may be based on the dollar but paid by the penny. 3.The cost of a penny is an economic indicator. What indications will be lost or hidden when it is removed from production. 4.When the penny is taken from an economy there is no longer the lowest proportion savings relevant to time set in production cost within manufacturing goods. This means instant higher cost in bulk purchased materials. 5.Nobody by the hacker ever thought to ever steal a penny. They do add up quickly and you want to it x5 . The pennies cost was never recoverable it serves a different purpose in the axiom. It has a logical reason of value no self-evident.\",\n \"Stop the Minting of the American Penny Yea sorry about the mishap. Thanks for being understanding though. That being said, this will be my last round for arguments, so I will respond to the Pro side’s last post and provide more clarity on my position. Section 1: The Penny has an Economic Impact in Industry, and Industry Tries to Help. In my last round, I reported that if the penny suddenly stopped being produced, that there would be a significant impact in the zinc industry that could cause large contracts with the government to be essentially voided. One such contract is with Jarden Zinc Products[1][2], who currently have contracts worth millions with the government to produce such pennies, and such voiding of coins for production would significantly have an impact on this industry. These companies don’t try and stifle the American government either, as such industry uses modern technology to reduce the cost of the manufacturing. Multi-ply plating technology is now used to reduce cost when compared to through alloy coins, and makes these coins possess a unique electro magnetic signature (EMS) which provides for greater coin security.[1] So yes I see the Pro’s side in that robotics can help manufacture durables (or pennies for this debate) cheaper, and that’s great, but against Pro’s argument, you don’t see people abolishing the car…. Or milk. It takes people to come up with such testing and technologies to try and achieve ideas to manufacture better, so yes this is not only jobs being lost, but innovation as well. Section 2: Financial Impact of the Penny’s Absence If the penny were to cease production, there would be many undesired consequences from this action that would be counter-intuitive from the Pro side, but would quickly become devastating realities for the general public. Intrinsically, if the penny were to be removed from production, there could be no way to sustain prices realistically without rounding to the nearest 5 cent piece. Millions of transactions are managed every day in the United States, and with 28% of Americans either not owning a savings/checking account, or trusting on payday lending services[3]. With this data, the amount of cash/coin trades each day is purely not dismissible, not withstanding that cash is used in 46% of all transactions in the U.S[4]. Demographics with comparatively low incomes (predominantly the young, elderly, and minorities) use cash more commonly than people with higher incomes. Because only cash dealings will be subject to rounding, any move to eradicate the penny would be regressive and hurt these demographics of Americans who have no other choice and do not possess the means to make non-cash transactions. According to one report[5], the Treasury would essentially lose money without the penny. First, the Mint's construction and circulation costs include fixed elements that will continue to be incurred whether or not the Mint manufactures the penny. The report approximates this fixed component at $13 million (2011). In addition, there is $17.7 million in operating costs apportioned to the penny that would have to be engrossed by the remaining denominations of circulating coins without the penny. Moreover, under present Mint accounting, the nickel expenses eleven cents to produce (and the nickel isn’t even being targeted in this debate). In a scenario where nickel manufacturing doubled without the penny, the study determines that with current fixed costs, abolishing the penny would prospectively result in increased net costs to the Mint of $10.9 million, compared to the current state of manufacturing. Section 3: Proposed Solutions As I previously stated, there are better ways to resolve this debate, and the best way is to make the penny worth 1 cent again. In 1982, the United States changed the composition of the penny to reduce manufacturing costs, and such similar solutions can be found again in contemporary times, ending an outdated 30-year solution. An option that could sustain such reduction is costs calls for a core of some sort of ceramic material, with similar heft as zinc[6]. Ceramics are metal-based and consequently much denser than plastic, though not as heavy as metal itself. Ceramics could be made from 2 inexpensive compounds: silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3, or possibly with a bit of denser oxide such as titanium oxide added for weight. The ceramic penny core likely could be anodized with a copper skin fairly cheapl, thus no longer requiring the use of zinc to manufacture our pennies. Section 4: Current Trends Over the past couple years, the prices of the metals needed to produce the modern penny have actually decreased. According to a report from the Department of Treasury[a], after attaining a peak cost of 2.41 cents in 2011 due to the substantial growth in global metal prices, the cost of manufacturing has dropped to 1.83 cents for 2013.[4] In the 2014 fiscal year, the cost to yield a penny fell additionally to 1.70 cents.Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) has introduced a bi-partisan bill to mandate the use of steel in the manufacturing of pennies, dimes, and nickels. . Research has shown this bill could save the U.S. government up to $2 billion in material costs over a 10 years. References: [1]: http://www.export.gov... [2]: http://legacy.utsandiego.com...; [3]:http://www.forbes.com... [4]: http://www.frbsf.org...; [5]: http://financialservices.house.gov... [6]: http://www.livescience.com... [7]: http://riponadvance.com...;\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) This is a RD 1 debate for Kleptin's tournament, and I will be assuming the role of Sportsguru from the following debate: . http://www.debate.org.... Feel free to peruse it prior to reading this one. Sportsguru will, in effect, be opposing himself (or at least arguments inspired by his own). Hence, if you see chunks of text directly quoted from the above-cited debate, I'm not plagiarizing. :) I affirm, resolved: the penny should be immediately discontinued. No definitions were provided within the referenced debate, and the topic was assumed to mean that the US should stop minting pennies as a form of currency. This resolution does not require me to do anything extreme, like pull all current pennies from circulation (hence the use of \\\"discontinued\\\"). We'll stick with that interpretation. Any others would be considered extra-topical, especially in light of the purpose of this tournament. Onto case: 1. Pennies are a complete waste of critical resources. a. For all its use within the American economy (i. e. next to none), the penny is produced at a cost to the U. S. Per the group Citizens for Retiring the Penny, the U. S. Dept. of Treasury produces approximately 7 billion pennies (worth $70 million) each year. The cost to make all those pennies was around $100 million. [1] As Sportsguru predicted a year ago, this cost is only rising. ABC World News reported in 2008 that the cost of minting pennies is right around $130 million. Each penny produced costs the U. S. 1.7 cents. En total, the U. S. loses around $50 million during the penny production process. [2] Talk about ill-advised spending. In times like these, with a global recession, a U. S. economy in the throws of a depression, poor government spending, and the public quickly losing faith in the ability of its elected officials to properly money-manage, this gesture, though relatively small, would be a step in the right direction to much needed expenditure examination. It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U. S. b. The transaction time in penny exchange costs the U. S. economy further. Though we don't often consider the time costs of a monetary exchange involving pennies (or change, for that matter), we should. Efficiency is a primary concern of a struggling economy, and any step toward improving efficiency while maintaining a just system should be taken. The National Association of Convenience Stores as well as the Walgreen's drug stores assert that transactions involving pennies waste approximately 2-2.5 seconds per cash transaction. That may seem like a pittance , but the resulting wasted time is exponentially terrible when considered on a national scale. I won't bore the readers with the calculus here, suffice to say that each American wastes around 2.5 hours every year on penny transactions. This would be mirrored in all consumer industries that take pennies within their transactions. If we then calculate the opportunity cost per person in the U. S. (i. e. what that 2.5 hours means in dollars in terms of salary), each person in the U. S. \\\"pays\\\" the government around $30-$40 just to keep pennies in circulation. Granted, some of that can be factored into the original production cost of $150 million (through taxes), but considering that the opportunity cost adds up to closer to $10 billion per year for the nation, pennies cost much more to keep in circulation than their production value. Though this $10 billion may seem like a tiny drop in the heaving, \\\"perfect-storm-esque\\\" sea that is the national debt, imagine the programs that can be funded on that money each year. 2. Increasing out dependence on China (and other foreign countries) is detrimental to both the domestic and foreign interests of the U. S. As is well known, China currently possesses the highest concentration of utilized zinc resources in the world. [3] Furthermore, they are actively trying to corner the market on this particular resource. Just this year, Chinese zinc giant Metallurgical Corp of China is seeking to bid on Anglo-American Zinc, worth approximately $1 billion. [4] If this acquisition is completed (which it likely will be), China would successfully purchase a huge chunk of the American industrial market, which is crucial because the US currently has the second highest concentration of zinc resources in the world. But, you might ask, why don't we just produce the zinc ourselves? Easy answer: we import because companies like Anglo-American can't undersell our foreign competitors. This is evident at the sale of Anglo-American. What's worse, it appears that Anglo-American will be controlled by a country other than the U. S. The other major bidders are all out of the country. We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy. These expenditures further damage our political capital, as we appear weak and unable to control our domestic affairs. Furthermore, as is clearly illustrated by the U. S. political lobby system, indebtedness translates directly into policy compromises. Considering China's current state of affairs, do we really want to compromise influence that we might have over, say, their human rights abuses? In conclusion, for the good of the nation and its citizens, I strongly urge a vote in favor of eliminating the penny. [1] . http://www.retirethepenny.org... [2] . http://abcnews.go.com... [3] . http://www.mapsofworld.com... [4] . http://www.reuters.com...\",\n \"The Penny The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies. .. Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year. Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore. Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line. Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first.\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished I highly disagree here I can get rid of old Abe I just can't no I wait for the arguments\",\n \"Convert the penny!!! The proposal to eliminate the penny has been a major issue ever since its cost of production exceeded its value. You claim that it currently costs 1.3 cents to make a penny. The numbers I've seen were a bit lower, stating that it costs around 1.23 cents. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the penny's cost of production does indeed exceed its value. The negative seignoirage value does cost the government money in terms of producing the penny. However, the economy is not solely, nor even mainly based on the cost of producing legal tender. The economic consequences of eliminating the penny would be disastrous, and in comparison to the possible and probable effects on the economy, the loss of $150 million in production is a minor one. The elimination of the penny would consequently make the lowest possible unit of currency 5 cents. This would lead to an adverse effect on consumers. When a purchase is made and the sales tax added, the final number would not be rounded up to the penny, but rather the nickel. This leads to a negative effect on consumers. This \\\"rounding tax\\\" as many economists call it, would lead to a cost of approximately $3 billion over the course of five years according to some numbers. This is much higher than the $750 million lost to producing a coin with a negative seignoirage value for a time span of five years. The penny must be retained for the good of the overall economy. The cost of production is minor compared to the consequences.\",\n \"Pennies should be abolished Pro has the BOP.If we used nickels, Americans would pay a \\\"rounding tax\\\" of about $2 billion to $4 billion per year [1]. But Pro wants to abolish nickels, so that tax would surely be much higher. This neutralizes any benefit that comes with the cost of making pennies. Poor people who make small purchases are hurt, as are charities that use penny drivesNext, pennies are sentimental. About two-thirds of Americans want to keep the penny [1]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...\",\n \"The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. If the U.S. greatly reduced the number of pennies manufactured, they might as well just cut production. In conclusion, I believe penny production should be cut because: a. They are practically worthless b. They are losing value c. Waste of time and space d. Cost more to produce then they are worth e. Pollution f. They cause money loss for citizens too Thank You\",\n \"Get rid of pennies Resolved: The US government should stop minting the Jefferson nickel and assign the Lincoln penny a five cent value in its place. Due to the rising, and risen, costs of metal, minting change is more expensive than ever. A Jefferson nickel costs almost 8 cents to mint and the Lincoln penny about 1.25 cents. Normally, the government makes profit by minting money (seigniorage), paying production cost and recieving face value. But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007. So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents. This not only saves the 3 cent and .25 cent loss for every nickel and penny minted, but creates a profit gap where the new Lincoln nickel makes the government 3.75 cents per coin. This begs the question, how would we handle cash transactions without a cent piece for precise change? Following other countries like Australia, we would instiute a rounding system, where cash transactions are rounded to the nearest 5 cents. (1, 2, 6, & 7 round down; 3, 4, 8 & 9 up). So, not only would the American taxpayers save hundreds of millions of dollars, we wouldn't have to deal with those one cent nuisances anymore.\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Actually pennies aren't unless as you think and if you get rid of it the poor pay the most - the poor will be affected the most, because they are most likely to make more frequent, smaller purchases, thus suffering the rounding up more often. And Nickels cost even more to make, If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.\",\n \"In the US, pennies should be abolished. 1. Forex Trade/Stock Exchange will not crash. The cost is not only rounded down/up, but a combination of both, depending on how close the cost is to the nearest 5-cent increment, which could actually cause a boom in forex/stock. 2. Nickels can also control inflation with lest cost to the government/mint. Pennies cost 2.4 cents to make, and are worth 1 cent.\",\n \"The Penny Rebuttal: 1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument. 2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not. 3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument. Other Rebuttal :D: 1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy. 2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway. 3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency. Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel. Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win!\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished I would love to pour out all the reasons why pennies should be abolished, but I need to save some of them for my closing arguments. First, it's not worth your time for pennies. Literally, if you pick up a penny off the street, you could have made more money in that exact frame of time. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage for all occupations is $16.87 per hour. Do the math, and that means a tiny bit more than a cent is earned every 3 seconds, and 5 cents every 11 seconds. This clearly shows how little the value of the penny is. Ignoring that, the U.S. could save money by getting rid of the pennies. According to the U.S. Mint, it costs more than 2 cents to create one penny. This means that the U.S. is losing tons of money by creating pennies. Also, a single penny can't buy you products anymore. The only machine at all that accepts pennies is... ...Coinstar. Coinstar is basically like an ATM, but only for coins. I have at least two more legs my opinions stand on, but I'll save the best for last.\",\n \"The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. I feel as though you are just repeating your argument over and over instead of debating both of our views and opinions. Greatly reducing the amount manufactured has quite different outcomes as retiring a form of currency. With the reduction they will still be in use and all of our old pennies (literally billions of dollars worth) and not make them obsolete like they would be if the penny was retired. In rebuttal to your conclusion: a. They still do have a use however (keep costs at more of an exact number) b. Which is why we re-create the penny out of new materials. New materials = new value if done correctly c. Not necessarily, they are used in almost every single purchase we make. d. Like I've already stated, make them out of cheaper more abundant materials e. Another thing you never gave me a response to my response about... Find a less toxic material that can be used in the creation of a new penny f. Whatever money they are taking from us for pennies they could easily put into something else like the salary for those in government. I guarantee that if they cease production of pennies that they will not take less money from us, they will just find a new place to waste it. Yep.\",\n \"We should get rid of the penny If you check the link you literally just copy and pasted it...and also first round is acceptance. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but in all honesty I doubt you know much about this topic as you just copy and pasted it. Thanks for accepting my debate though! Also welcome to debate.org (oh and just to clarify by we I mean the US)I will state my arguments for keeping the penny.Argument 1- It costs more to make a penny then it is worth [1]It costs 2.41 cents to make one penny, and approx. 7.4 billion pennies are made each year [2], so do the math and we are wasting over 10360000000 pennies a year, or 103600000 (over 100 million), dollars a year on pennies alone. This is money that could be spent much more effectively, like on public schools! (Another source I found said pennies cost 1.7 cents to produce, which would still equal to over 50 million dollars lost)Argument 2- We already went along fine without something worth one cent [3] According to popular youtuber Hank Green \\\"..in 1972 a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, and yet in 1972 the economy managed to function just fine without a coin that was worth 1/5th of a penny.\\\" It has worked before, it will work again.Argument 3- They are uselessMoney could easily be rounded to the nearest fifth, and are simply not worth the time and effort to take out and fiddle with exact change[1]http://www.usmint.gov... (at the bottom of the page)[2]http://coins.about.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com...\",\n \"The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. I understand your views and where you are coming from but I have to disagree. If we were to simply just stop the production of pennies just think of the changes that would have to be made to our country economically speaking. Taxation would have to be adjusted to a numerical value system based off of our remaining coins which are all multiples of fives, causing potential increases in how much and how we are taxed. Theoretically speaking, what would the cost for a cheap item with a tax of one cent be changed too? Would we just have no tax on it or would we just round up to five? It's a large amount of work to be done when there is another solution. Instead of simply \\\"stopping the production of pennies,\\\" I feel that we should change the materials of a penny or the size. Having different cheaper materials put into the penny would lower the costs of the penny and with the cessation of the current penny model we would see a very small increase in the value of the current penny. The copper penny as we know it now will become an older form of currency increasing it's value amongst collectors. Just like much other older forms of currency, after production is stopped and less of the currency is around, the more valuable it becomes. The other solution I stated before is making the penny smaller. By doing this we won't be putting as much material into it, and less material equals less cost.\",\n \"Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. 1. Well that's great, but I don't really care that you use pennies for garage sales. (Wait, garage sales are still a thing? Really?) Considering that we're thinking in terms of actual businesses and services. 2. It's just a 1 or 2 cent difference, I doubt that's much of a problem.3. Hey, I don't like the nickel either, but lets be real here; it's impossible to think we can actually get rid of the nickel.\",\n \"The USFG should eliminate the penny When the Baby Boomers were young, a penny still had some value. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research group, reminisces in a 2013 anti-penny screed about paying a nickel for an ice cream cone as a boy. Even during my childhood in the 1980s, there was a candy store not far from our house that sold \\\"penny candy\\\" in jars \\\" one penny for a mini Tootsie Roll, or two for a Mary Jane. Today, there\\\"s literally nothing you can buy with a single penny \\\" and you can\\\"t do much else with it either. Vending machines don\\\"t accept them, and neither do most parking meters. Even automatic toll booths won\\\"t take them \\\" except in Illinois, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln, whose face adorns the coin. And if a single penny is useless, a whole bunch of pennies isn\\\"t much better. If you try paying for something in a store with a fistful of pennies, you can expect dirty looks from both the clerk and the other customers \\\" if the store doesn\\\"t just flat-out refuse to take them. Pennies are so hard to spend that many people don\\\"t even bother \\\" they just store them all in jars, or even throw them away. Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University argues that pennies are simply no longer useful as a means of exchange: \\\"When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.\\\" There are precedents for getting rid of coins that are too small to use. Back in 1857, the U.S. Mint stopped producing halfpenny coins \\\" which, according to the historical information calculator at MeasuringWorth.com, had a purchasing power of $0.14 in 2015 dollars. So at the time it was eliminated, the \\\"useless\\\" halfpenny could buy as much as 14 pennies can today. If consumers in 1857 could get along without halfpennies, then modern consumers can almost certainly manage without a coin that\\\"s worth less than one-tenth as much.\",\n \"Get rid of the penny!! True, the government makes more money in seignoirage than it loses. Still, just because the government makes money overall, doesn't mean it shouldn't cut out a losing endevour. The present system of nickels and pennies still loses over $150 million a year, regardless of how much it costs to make bills. If we adopt the plan, thats an extra $150 million dollars in the government's pockets that isn't adding to the deficit. Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost. Your second objection is that we need pennies for transactions etc. But, transactions are already rounded. When you buy gas, the price per gallon isn't $3.59, but $3.599. Thats what that miniature number farthest to the right on the sign means. So, rather than rounding off tenths of cents, we would be rounding off full cents. Some argue this would lead to a 'rouding tax' where buyers are robbed of pennies on every transaction. But, a study was conducted, and simple logic would show, that out of the countless transactions performed everyday, there are an even number of transactions that would round up and round down, leaving the monetary advantage null. So, we should abolish the penny because they are personally annoying, and would save taxpayers $150 million dollars a year without effecting transactions.\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. Okay after a long hiatus, I am back again and ready to rumble. I must unfortunately begin with the almost obligatory request that voters vote for whom did the better debating rather than with whom you agree with. With that out of the way I will first present my case before moving on to my opponent's. 1. Direct waste of money According to Citizens for Retiring the Penny (http://www.retirethepenny.org...) , the U.S. Mint produces about 7 billion pennies ($70 million) every year at a cost over $100 million. Thus, we directly lose at least $30 million a year producing the penny. And with the rising cost of zinc, that deficit will only grow. 2. Waste of time (= indirect waste of money) The National Association of Convenience Stores and Walgreen's drug stores estimated that pennies waste 2 to 2.5 seconds per each cash transaction. If we estimate that each person goes through two of these transactions per day (which seems rather low) and that on average there is one person waiting in line (which once again seems low). This makes for 3 persons' time to be wasted (cashier, penny finder, person in line). We can then calculate that the presence of pennies wastes (2 transactions/day) X (2 seconds/transaction) X (3 people per transaction) = 12 seconds per day, or 1.2 hours per person per year. Of course, when you get home you still have to find something to do with your pennies, meaning that probably only about half of the wasted time is directly connected with a cash transaction (the other time is associated with counting pennies etc), giving a total of 2.4 wasted hours per person per year. The mean wage in the US is approximately $17/hour, implying that each of us is effectively \\\"paying\\\" $40 per year to keep pennies in circulation. Given that the US has ~ 240 million adults, using pennies is currently costing the nation $10 billion per year. Thus, the penny costs us $10,030,000 per year. While this may seem small compared to the total national debt, every little bit helps. In fact, if no cost cutting measures were taken other than retiring the penny, the current debt would be erased in 959,619 years! 3. China dependence The reason for influx of the price make pennies is the main ingredient: zinc. And guess who is the world's largest exporter of zinc… you guessed it: China! With every penny we make, we further increase our economic dependency on China. So retiring the penny would also make our economy more independent. Now to my opponent: My opponent has one argument: that the nostalgic value of the penny cannot be ignored, comparing it to various monuments in D.C. I will contend the actual nostalgic value in a second but first we must see that keeping the penny could in fact result in the end of it. As I have shown, we are losing tremendous amounts of money due to the penny. This annual loss helps push our economy helping to lead to a recession or a depression. When you have depression, countries are in danger of breaking apart. If the U.S. were to cease to exist so would the penny, so either way we lose any nostalgic value. Now I contend that there is no value to the penny. Considering that 58% of people save pennies rather than spend them, the new penny philosophy seems to be the one found in this Ashfield comic: http://www.ashfieldonline.com... rather than the one my opponent is indicating. As I have shown why the penny should be discontinued I bid adieu until my opponent responds.\",\n \"Get rid of the penny!! My opponent claims that the penny costs more to make than it's worth. However, the government would not lose money overall, since a $20 to $0.04 deficit in the case of a $20 bill would outnumber the extra $0.003 it costs to make a penny. The penny is also very important for the sake of providing change and paying sales tax. For example, say you want to buy a double cheeseburger from McDonalds' dollar menu. In some states, the sales tax is $0.06, bringing the total cost of that burger up to $1.06. You would need to pay with a $1 bill, a nickel, and a penny. Unless you pay with, for instance, a dollar and a dime, in which case the cashier would need to use pennies to pay you back in change.\",\n \"In the US, pennies should be abolished. I. The Penny costs more than the mint makes it forMy opponent has wasted this round. Look very closely at everything he wrote. He restated his original contention, and I did not argue it, because it's true. The fact of the matter is, even though the US will save a couple million, it will lose 10's of billions.I will give my opponent one more round to not drop my points. The con's far outweigh the pro's in this debate, which are miniscule. I will address the point regardless. The Canadian strategy was to increase and keep inflation above the USD. As soon as they removed the penny, the inflation of the CD fell extremely far. It went from being .06$ more than the USD, to being .09$ below it.Canada is a perfect example of a nation who was hit hard by removing the penny.Do not waste my time in a debate, by droping all three of my contentions\",\n \"The United States should cease production of the penny Full Resolution: The United States should cease production of the penny.\",\n \"The Penny 1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny. 2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement. 3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5\\\" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it. 1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5\\\" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year. 2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income. 3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument. Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars. Sources: 1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm 2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html 3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win\",\n \"The United States should cease production of the penny I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41\\\" to make a 1\\\" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny.\",\n \"The penny should be stopped from circulation !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! ! !\",\n \"Gettin rid of pennie's Just because the penny will be soon forgotten and people will not care about it after awhile does not mean that it must go. The penny and other discontinued change have been forgotten these day's because the people hve been forced to forget! It's gone, no more of it and common people have no say to bring it back to life so they forget. The other chnge that hs been discontinued like the half penny, was just a smll part of the money business, except the penny was a big part, it filled in anywhere when you did not have the extra, Exmple would be an item cost's 2.87$ well you could use a toonie, three quarter's, two nickel's, and a penny. The penny was a steping stool for learning how to count money, it was easier to remember the one plus one plus one... And now the little children are expected to count by five's straight off when they learn about money, it will be hard, plus they will have to learn the rounding you'r supposed to do of a price if it's in need of a penny. Don't forget the old foak's either, like they say you can't teach an old dog new trick's.\",\n \"Get rid of the penny!! \\\"Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost.\\\" Maybe I'm reading this quote wrong (please correct me if I am), but in that quote, you state, \\\"...nickels would be worth more than cost.\\\" However, in this next quote, you state: \\\"Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel.\\\" Thus contradicting yourself and the idea of profiting from the disposal of the penny. As you say, \\\"the monetary advantage [is] null.\\\" Therefore, what good is disposing of the penny? You still haven't showed me an alternative for transactions from change and tax, as demonstrated in my McDonalds example. The only solution I can think of is changing the price of everything to end with a change value of a multiple of 5 (i.e. $1.25, $1.50, etc.). This would not only be costly and tedious, a flat sales tax would have to be adopted by every state ($0.05, $0.10, etc.). The penny should not be abolished, because it is necessary for sales transactions, and would do more harm than good.\",\n \"Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel RULES OF DEBATE The rules are very simple. I expect a pleasant, semi-formal debate. Please consider these rules if you plan to accept this debate: Participants of all ages and experience are welcome to accept this debate. However, I expect my opponent to behave and take this partially serious. I want us to have fun and have a factual debate. No vulgar language and or personal attacks. I don't expect this to be an issue but I feel I should mention this. The first round is to be for acceptance only. These three rules should be followed or defeat will be considered by default. They're not very difficult and I expect you to follow them.BE IT RESOLVED: that the penny and the nickel be eliminated from production in the US Mint. Good luck to my opponent (whomever you may be) and I look forward to this debate!\",\n \"Should the penny be kept in US currency Many economic breakdowns have resulted in the collapse of countries. My opponent clearly said we could get over it however may I argue that the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the world at that time, experienced an economic collapse. This crisis was one of the key factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russia. Next comes lack of military. Any \\\"ripple in the world of money\\\" can cause a serious impact on the military. As I speak the US is in war with ISIL, and having an economic crisis will not benefit us as all. The penny also should not be taken from the US currency because, as you said, we might have to resort to credit cards, but remember this. Many shops don't accept credit cards, the shops will experience a downfall in what they can do, and many places will go out of business, causing more and more to do the same.\",\n \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service I have not debated on this website for a long time. Glad to be back! Moving on, this is the debate of the topic: \\\"The US Penny Should be Taken Out of Service.\\\" The first round is simply for acceptance. Rules: 1) No trolling/semantics. 2) No offensive content/swearing 3) Keep arguments within the spirit of debate/no personal attacks. In the event of a rule being broken by either side, it will result in an automatic loss. I eagerly await an opponent.\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good.\",\n \"Pennies should be abolished Pennies are a waste of time and money. For instance, according http://www.usmint.gov...;, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny, along with the nickel should be abolished in production.\",\n \"The US should abolish the penny The problem with pennies as stated in my first argument is that pennies are no longer convenient. Even after that penny in the $0.99 transaction is returned, the penny will most likely end up in a jar dead to the economy not fulfilling its role as currency. The fact that machines such as Coin Star exist that take advantage of the inconvenience and uselessness of pennies to make money off of people just proves my point. Many businesses and organizations recognize the cost of transporting and counting the pennies isn\\\"t worth it. One of these organizations includes a little organization known as the United States Military, where in overseas bases have banned the use of pennies. They also contradict your definition of consumerism as because those who use exact change to pay for items waste the time of those waiting and overall, the rate at which things are sold decreases. There is a simple answer as to what happens after the penny is abolished. There are many countries around the world including New Zealand, Canada, etc. that have gotten rid of their lowest unit of currency and ended up fine. None of these countries have saw high degrees of inflation or drop in charitable donation. The US could easily take after those countries. Also this sort of process isn\\\"t anything new to the US as we went through the same process when ditching the half-cent coin in the 1800\\\"s for the same reasons we should ditch the penny. Abolishing the penny would actually do it good. As the amount of pennies decrease as they are melted, lost, etc. their value begins to increase again. Take a look at the half-cent coin now and they have more buying power than the US dime. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://factually.gizmodo.com...\",\n \"Get rid of pennies Roadmap- I will go over the benefits of the penny then refute my opponents arguments. C1) While individually pennies are not worth much, over time they add up. A) In 2002, Gallup polling found that 58 percent of Americans stash pennies in piggy banks, jars, drawers and the like, instead of spending them like other coins. Some people eventually redeem them at banks or coin-counting machines! So many Americans actually do use the penny. B) Furthermore, the penny is used to raise money by charity organizations. People who would not be willing to part with a larger bill are often willing to give up Pennies. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has raised 150 million dollars through its \\\"Pennies for Patients\\\" program over 15 years. Without the penny, this cancer research would not have been possible. C2) Pennies help fight inflation \\\"We think the penny is important as a hedge to inflation,\\\" says director Mark Weller of Americans for Common Cents. \\\"Any time you have more accurate pricing, consumers benefit.\\\" Small business owners and small purchases rely on the penny. Loss of the penny will create inflation and price instability. http://www.offthekuff.com... C3) The rise of credit cards defeats the purpose of rounding coins. The common complaint about pennies is that they are inefficient to use. Credit cards however operate by computer. They can handle as many digits as needed. As credit cards become more common, pennies will be used less. So these disadvantages become less noticeable. Onto my opponents case \\\"But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007.\\\" First, I would like to point out my opponent provided no sources for this claim(or any claim he makes). The argument should be discredited on that basis alone. Second, the federal government has a budget of three trillion a year. 100 Million dollars would be .0003 percent of the yearly budget. This would have a virtually unnoticeable effect on the budget (It would save everyone money in the pennies, which as my opponent has abolished would result in no benefit for most tax payers). This is significantly outweighed by the extra money a 99 cent purchase would now cost (1 percent). http://www.wallstats.com... \\\"So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents\\\" This part of my opponents case would have a significant negative impact on the economy. Suddenly, every penny a person owns would quintuple in value. The amount of money in the US economy would change. Assuming Congress was even considering passing this bill, there would be a mad dash by consumers to acquire as many pennies as they can. This would create much instability in the market place. In summary, I provide 3 reasons we should keep the penny in circulation, disprove the only reason my opponent actually gives to abolish the penny(100 million spent) and prove how his implementation would hurt the economy far more than it would help.\",\n \"The Penny Should Die. Hello. My name is AppleAddict439, and i thank the challenger for accepting this debate. Let\\\"s start in 1792, with the first U.S mint. Back then, pennies were made out 100% copper. There was no zinc in the actual penny. But, the market changed. The value of copper went up, and, due to inflation, the value of the penny went down. After that, the penny became almost completely zinc. Then, in 2006, the old pennies were found to have a value above 1 cent, so people began to melt them down to make a nice, tidy profit. Then Congress decided that pennies were actually worth something (they\\\"re not) and passed a law against melting U.S currency. So, let me get to the data. Math time! Each second, the U.S mint produces 1,040 pennies a second, 30 million pennies a day, and (as of 2016) produce 13,000,000,000 pennies each year. 13,000,000,000!!! But, for each cent we make, we lose a little bit of money due to the fact it takes (as of 2016) 1.5 cents to make 1 cent. Now, you may be thinking: \\\"Wow. really makes a difference. 0.5 cents lost for each penny. That\\\"s so much.\\\" Actually, if you thought that, you are partly right. It is so much. After 13 billion pennies were made this year, with 0.5 cents lost for each penny, that means that in 2016 we lost 6,500,000,000 dollars to the penny making franchise. Now, we could be using that money to fix U.S debt and the U.S deficit, but no. We have to make pennies. Pennies are bad for us and bad for the U.S economy because: Say you want to pay for a 20$ toy. That\\\"s 2000 pennies you have to carry around\\\" Pennies add, on average, 2.2 seconds to each cash transaction, which causes a 1 billion dollar loss in money each year due to productivity costs. If you want to spend your precious pennies, it will be hard. For example, vending machines, laundromats, tollbooths, parking meters, newspaper machines, or telescopes. Pennies, essentially are DEAD WEIGHT in cash transactions. So, there are probably the penny diehards who are listening to me reading this that are thinking: But\\\" It\\\"s never been done before! We\\\"ve never removed the penny, nor have others!\\\" Well, that\\\"s wrong. New Zealand, Finland, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have removed their one cent coins or pennies. They now round to the nearest 5 cent. But- others say-we\\\"ll remove Lincoln! That would be oh no: UNPATRIOTIC. Well, Lincoln is still on the 5 dollar bill, and- get this: some military bases round to the nearest 5 cent. To put it simply in the words of CGP Gray: Pennies waste money, waste time, are a money fail, and are worth less and less each year due to inflation. And that's it. I Look forward to the next round.\",\n \"Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. I think that the production shouldn't be stopped because for one, in a way, it kinda makes things easier. And taking away the penny would make things more expensive change wise also. and EVERY store EVERYWHERE would have to change the price tag on everything so that the lowest change number was 5 cents\",\n \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service To start this debate, I'd like to define some of the key terms and state that I am con, firmly arguing why the US penny should not be taken out of service. Definitions: Penny Taken Out of Service: All pennies within the United States will neither be minted nor accepted as legal tender. Plan: As I am Con, it is not my job to address a plan, so the plan must be addressed by Pro. Burden of Proof: Here, I'd like to establish a 3-pronged burden of proof for Pro. In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must prove the following three items: 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. If any fragment of these three items is left unproved, then I, Con, will win this debate. Arguments: I would like to bring 2 major points into this debate. Argument 1: Economical Harm The US penny should not be taken out of service because it will harm the economy. Even though it is only one cent, the penny is extremely important in the way the US economic system works. How can we achieve the same amount of exactness in change and payments as we do with the penny? The only answer is rounding, but that is detrimental to the economy. According to pennies. org, propositions take the penny out of service and utilize the nickel as the coin of lowest value create public anxiety about higher prices and inflation. Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) are concerned that merchants would raise prices without the penny. And, most likely, they are correct. Professor of Economics at Penn State University Raymond Lombra, Ph. D. said to a Congressional committee that rounding cash sales up or down to the nearest nickel would cost consumers over $600 million annually. For example, you are a merchant who runs a clothing store. You charge $11 for a t-shirt, and the sales tax in California is 7.5%. You have a customer, and he/she pays in cash. The amount comes down to $11.86 with the sales tax. But, wait\\\" you have no pennies! How do you get the extra cent when there are no cents? The only answer is to round the price down to $11.85, but then you're losing a cent! When the penny is taken out of service, multiply this example by millions per day, and, as Raymond Lombra puts it, $600 million is now lost per year versus when the penny was still in service. $600 million dollars being lost just from taking a coin out of service is an extremely significant amount that cannot be ignored. A whopping majority of 77% of the general public is worried about taking the penny out of service. Without the penny, the the general public will lose money and the US economic situation will worsen. Argument 2: Charities The US penny should not be taken out of service because charities need pennies. There are a plethora of small charities that depend on penny drive to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily. Many corporations, national charities, schools, and local philanthropies have realized the worth of the penny. Through the use of point-of-sale collections, penny drives and competitive penny fundraisers, these groups have turned thousands of idle pennies into real dollars for everything from college scholarships to cancer research and housing for the homeless. One major example is Pennies for Patients, and without pennies, it would be nickels for patients, but that doesn't sound good! Pennies always have a worth to someone no matter who he/she may be. Pennies rescue people battling terrible diseases such as cancer. Pennies can save lives. College scholarships and cancer research rely on pennies. We, the opposition, want the best in the future, and the best is not to eliminate the penny.\",\n \"That Pennies Should Be Abolished The purpose of currency is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services by providing a good with an agreed upon value that can be traded for a multitude of other goods. As Pro in this debate I will argue that pennies are failing to fulfil this purpose. The context of this debate is present day United States. For this debate \\\"penny\\\" refers to the one-cent-coin. The model I am proposing is that the US mint simply stops producing any more pennies. All pennies currently in circulation are to remain as legal tender. However, after their expenditure shops are to send their pennies back to the US mint where they will be melted down. This means that the supply of pennies will gradually decrease. Price transactions are to be rounded to the nearest five cents. RulesThe opening round is for acceptance only. I will give the Pro case in the second round. Standard debating rules apply, they are as follows: 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 5. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R5.5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. I will attack his case first then defend mine. 1st Cont:It is a waste of money. when you think about it food is a waste of money as well. Why should we pay thousands a year to other people/countries to grow food when we can grow it ourselves? So pennies are a small waste of money, but was it a waste, once again, to build the monuments? 2nd Cont:They are a waste if time. If they are a waste of time why do we continue to make them? We make them because they help to even our money transactions. We can't just round everything to to nearest nickel, because then half of the products would be MORE expensive then before, therefore wasting cash as well. We need the penny to help keep the current prices steadier then they would be otherwise. 3rd Cont:We would lessen dependence on China. Maybe we would but then we would relie more on the countries making the other ingredients for other coins, like steel(iron), nickel, and we would still need alot of zinc. 4th Cont:Penny has no value. The 58% of people who save them are saving them for a reason...to spend them! Therefore, more money into the economy in a bigger amount. and the whole germ situation, that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Dollar bills are made of linen, a very easy-to-contaminate cloth that holds even more germs then the penny, therefore if we went off hygiene, we hould eliminate currency altogether. O.k., now i will defend my case. Argument, the U.S. would be in danger of breaking apart. The penny will not be the reason for the destruction of the U.S. The trillions of dollars of national debt will do it. Those amount grow by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.\",\n \"In the US, pennies should be abolished. I. Forex/Stock ExchangeMy opponent still does not get it. Rounding up to the nearest 5 cents adds up. Lets say a investor buys 500,000 stocks worth 7.13$, and we decide to remove the penny. If the nickel is rounded up .02$, then the investor loses 100'000's of dollars. Likewise, if we decide to round the penny down, then the seller or company likewise loses 100'000's in equity.II. Inflation ControlYou can control inflation with any kind of currency. The difference between controlling it with a nickel and controlling it with a penny is vast though. Using a penny can round down a inflation percentage to the nearest 0.1. This can help the economy and the world market tremendously.You might as well just kill the banking industry if you're going to round to a nickel, not to mention the federal reserve will crash, and with it, billions of corporates. III. Just make the penny cheaper My opponent has not considered simply removing more silver, zinc, or copper from the penny. Instead of removing it and costing the nation about 100 billion dollars, we could just lower the materials we put in the penny as they leave the US mint. Actually, we do every few years. The penny gets cheaper and cheaper overtime, and the reason the mint is keeping it 2.00$ now, is because we have a inflating economy.Soon the value of the penny and its cost will equal each other. Come on people. Let's not pull a Canada here.\",\n \"Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.\",\n \"Should the penny be kept in US currency If we take away the penny (and the nickel), we will be back at 1947. This was shortly after the Great Depression ended, and if we don't have smaller coins (the lack of small coins prevented us from getting out of this terrible event), a whole new Great Depression could appear. That's not just a ripple, that is throwing us seventy years behind the rest of the world, and it will be difficult to get out of that. We may have to devote to rounding. $2 bills are to $20 bills, as $1 bills are to $10 bills, same with $5 to $50, and $10 to $100. The two dollar bill helps our economy as much as a twenty dollar bill, which is why we are coming towards it. The two dollar bill will boost, and all taking away the penny can do is throw us behind the rest of the world. This will cause our taxes to be lowered, which means less money on international relationships, which means, debt that can't be paid off, lack of military. These things will make the US vulnerable to the outside forces. Good luck!\",\n \"The Penny I will be arguing that the production of the penny should continue. I look forward to a fun and informative debate. Good luck!\",\n \"Should the penny be kept in US currency Believe it or not, the nickel costs more than it is worth to make too. If you think you're on to something, we'll be increasing our currency by 10x, which usually leads to economical fails. As most people know, a failing economy is not a good sign, and we could be minting trillion dollar bills before we know it!\",\n \"The Penny Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.\",\n \"The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished You should not eliminate the U.S. penny! First of all If we eliminate the U.S. penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor! Costing us more for everything we buy. Last Charities need pennies, alot can add up from pennies and that helps people because most likely people going to give away their pennies because it's 'cost less' to them.\",\n \"Stop the Minting of the American Penny I believe that the American penny, for many reasons, serves no real purpose in our modern world, and we should cease minting it as soon as possible.First round is for acceptance only.Definitions:American Penny: the one cent coin currently used for the USD (United States Dollar, $).Mint: to make a coin.\",\n \"The Penny This debate is about wether or not the penny should countinue being made in the United States of America. As con I will argue that penny production should be ceased, as pro you will argue that penny production should countinue.\",\n \"The penny should be immediately discontinued. When you think of America you think of things like the Statue of Liberty or the sunn beaches of Miami or LA. When it comes to symbols of america though, it is hard to beat the iconinc penny. it is the commenest coin in America and is therefore easy to recognize when you see a penny in the newsparer or ont the internet that it means haing to do with currency. We cannot simply get rid off the penny. That is like blowing up the Lincon Monument or toppling the Washington Monumet. It just simply isn't even thought of.\",\n \"Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised!\",\n \"Stop the Minting of the American Penny Contrary to the original post, the penny does actually provide a real purpose in our modern world. And not only this, this debate has been won by the Con side throughout various times in our nation's history. There exist many jobs in the zinc and zinc-related industries that produce these pennies, as well as transportation jobs in relation to delivering pennies to various institutions. By ceasing the production and minting of the penny, we see many of these jobs that would be otherwise lost. These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. In 1982, these pennies were made from brass, and were also engaging in a higher production cost. However, in this year, zinc was used to provide 97.5% of the composition of the penny, with the thin copper plating on the outside of the coin. Initially this saved the government millions of dollars, but we have seen recently the rising prices of zinc. It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. Hypothetically, if the cost of ink and paper exceeded $1, would we eliminate the dollar? If it exceeded $100, would we tell all the Benjamin Franklin enthusiasts that his likeness and portrait will be less commonplace? Of course not, as there are many materials that can be made to provide coins and currency, and the re-visitation of such denominations is a sufficient way to address such concerns. As another example, in 1943, the Mint produced pennies made of zinc-coated steel to conserve copper for military use, yet we still kept the penny as a valid denomination. So conclusively, the point is not to abandon the penny all together, but provide steps to reform the concentration and the composition of the material that we use in making such a denomination.\",\n \"The US should abolish the penny I believe that the US should abolish the penny for multiple reasons. The person who accepts this is in support of keeping the pennies.\",\n \"Should the penny be kept in US currency The penny may have sounded like a good idea when It was invented, but except for certain transactions of \\\"$22.01\\\" it isn't necessary. The penny costs more than it is worth to make! Sure, it would cause a ripple in the world of money, but we can get over that!\",\n \"Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. I think that pennies should stop being produced by the U. S. mint and taken out of circulation, similar to what Canada did. The penny costs more to make then it's worth, it's rarely actually used. It's a detriment to our economy.\",\n \"Should the penny be kept in US currency The removal of the penny will cause an economic breakdown, sure. But so have many other things- and we got over it. The penny is soon going to be obselete, along with most other coins and even bills. Technology is growing by the minute. Credit cards are a more efficient way of payment, as compared to it.\",\n \"Should the U.S. keep the penny I think we should keep the penny, because if not then yo momma will have to raise her price to a nickel. And what yo momma gives me is only worth 3 cents. So yo momma would be getting a free 2 cents every time she services me.\",\n \"Gettin rid of pennie's Reasons why pennies should be eliminated. Other Countries Have Successfully Done without TheirsMany other countries have eliminated several small denominations from their currency with no major impact on commerce. New Zealand, for instance, dropped their one and two-cent coins over 20 years ago. They have, since then, eliminated their nickel as well.We\\\"ll Conserve Natural ResourcesWe\\\"re more aware today than ever that the minerals we mine aren\\\"t going to last forever. Ceasing production of pennies will lower our consumption of copper and zinc, as well as the fuel and energy required to mine and process it.It Will Increase in ValueHistorically, dropping any minted coin out of circulation immediately increases its value as a collectible. So, in 2020, all those pennies laying around the house will be worth more, and will continue to gain value as time passes. Many collectors are already starting to collect lots of pennies, taking more out of circulation.Nobody Misses the HalfpennyThese days, very few individuals realize that the US once had a half-cent coin. That\\\"s because it was taken out of circulation in 1857. Given that phasing out this denomination had virtually no impact on commerce, there\\\"s no reason to think that dropping the penny will have any serious side effects.\",\n \"The penny should be stopped from circulation I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.\",\n \"Should the penny be kept in US currency Let me make this clear. I said an economic breakdown HERE, meaning the U.S. The US is much more capable of recovering from a breakdown than the Soviet Union. Back on topic, my closing argument is that the penny is outdated. The time has come for it to be removed, naturally or by force. New forms of currency, like the $2 bill are becoming more and more widespread. A penny is just something that you throw on the ground, forget about. The making of the penny should be stopped, although to prevent an economic breakdown it should remain as a legitimate form of payment, usin the penny's already in circulation of the U.S.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"}}},{"rowIdx":44,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should net neutrality be restored?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Network neutrality\nNet Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem","The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality\nTaking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.","The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.\n\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such \"network neutrality\" obligations on broadband providers.\" http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...","The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.\n\"This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come\" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. \"Let's look at the Verizon example given\" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. \"Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality.\" Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. \"dumb internet\" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The \"stupid\" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. \"consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use .\" Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. \"My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs.\" I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. \"consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. \"allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?\" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. \"ISPs are profit motivated.\" Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. \"who owns the Internet.\" I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. \"Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies\" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. \"the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network.\" If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. \"we inhibit future improvements and adaptations.\" Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. \"ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites.\" Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... \"This is completely false and baseless claim.\" They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. \"ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets.\" Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider.","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\nThanks, Pro, for your quick yet substantive rebuttals. Freedom of SpeechFirst, I would like to provide a general criticism of Pro’s argument that the FCC would through net neutrality, infringe upon freedom of speech. Note that the resolution of the debate concerns whether “the USFG should reject net neutrality.” But he has not specified exactly which form of net neutrality legislation the USFG ought the reject. Thus, we are left to concluding that he is arguing that the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; a concept - in effect, all forms of net neutrality. Pro too notes that he was quite interested in “the concept of net neutrality”. As a result, this debate should focus on net neutrality as a principle of a concept. However, his argument - the FCC would likely infringe upon freedom of speech through net neutrality – is not sufficient to reach the conclusion – the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; in effect, all forms of net neutrality. This is because Pro’s argument has a very narrow scope; it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer, rather than net neutrality itself. In effect, his argument does not take into consideration potential net neutrality legislation; for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. In this scenario, it may be that the FCC has a strong incentive in reinvoking the Fairness Doctrine, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Pro argues that because previously, the FCC has regulated content on TV and radio and was allowed to decide what was content-neutral, the FCC is likely to infringe upon freedom of speech on the Internet. But the problem is that the FCC was allowed to decide on their interpretation on what was content-neutral. As noted, the resolution is dealing with net neutrality as a principle. In legislation of net neutrality where the FCC was not allowed to define “content neutral”, this argument would no longer apply. In addition, Pro neglected to mention that structural differences between the operation of TV + Radio and the Internet. Leonhardt notes that:“the Internet “decouples” the strong link between transmission and content; therefore, there is nothing on the Internet that is directly analogous to a television or radio broadcaster. Television broadcasters both transmit data and control its content, so that when a person watches NBC, they are only seeing NBC’s programming. Conversely, on the Internet, the signal comes to a home from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as AT&T, Comcast, Road Runner, or Verizon.57 However, once a consumer has a signal, they can view any content at all—even content created by a competing ISP.” (1) Consequently, we also should by default reject Pro’s slippery slope argument regarding the possibility of net neutrality leading to censorship as seen in China, because it falls to the same “general criticism” I already made above. But even if we do not reject such an argument by default we could make a variety of criticisms. Firstly, I noted in the 2nd round that Pro’s argument is logically fallacious because it commits the slippery slope fallacy. Pro never responded to this, although he did indicate that he would eventually respond to all arguments, so I’ll wait for him to do so. I also argued that because of the socio-political differences between in America and China, it is unlikely that net neutrality would lead to censorship like seen in China. Pro does not dispute this point; he merely argues that government officials still have the intention of keeping in power. However, this is irrelevant, because I am arguing that regardless of the government’s will to stay in power, infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries. CompetitionPreviously, I argued that because there are legitimate uses of BitTorrent, Comcast should not have blocked BitTorrent traffic. Pro’s reply misses the mark. Firstly, he argues that the “site should solely be halted because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities”. However, Comcast was not solely blocking sites that hold pirated content available through BitTorrent, they were blocking BitTorrent traffic in general. In addition, there many examples of sites that use BitTorrent for solely legal purposes and have no pirated content. I provided the example of the Internet Archive in my previous round. To elaborate upon my last round, I also suggested that in order to download and update specific games, one would use a client that is dependent on BitTorrent technology. Furthermore, Pro shifts burden-of-proof. His argument is dependent on the assumption (aka. Hidden premise) that ISPs have the right to block out specific content ie. BitTorrent traffic, thus he is expected to defend the premise, just like any other premise. I don’t have to provide an argument against this assumption, I merely have to ensure that his hidden premise is not affirmed, and I can do this by providing arguments of my own, criticising his arguments for the hidden premise, or both. In the 2nd Round, Pro also notes that he is arguing that net neutrality would take steps towards a closed Internet, rather than an open Internet, and thus it should be rejected. I showed that in order for this to lead logically to the USFG rejecting net neutrality, Pro would have to assume that an open Internet is desirable, and that a closed Internet is undesirable. I noted that I too support an open internet. Thus, this debate is run on the parameters that an open Internet is desirable, whilst a closed Internet is undesirable. Recall that the definition of closed Internet that is applied to this debate is: “where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.”If Pro is willing to defend Comcast’s blocking of BitTorrent traffic/websites - which is a textbook example of “explicitly filter[ing] content” - he is in effect defending actions leading to a closed Internet. However, this makes his case inconsistent, because he is arguing that net neutrality leads to a closed Internet, and thus should be rejected while at the same time supporting other actions which lead to a closed Internet. Innovationa) Pro misread me; I was not affirming that the value of the examples to be intrinsic, I was saying that those were relative. For instance, I would place the highest value on the e-Book, then the online calculator, and next-to-no value on the funny home video. In contrast, somebody may else may have the exact opposite. If ISPs were to regulate content as Pro proposes, then the problem of how the ISP should discern the value of each of these examples is raised. b) I argued that Pro needs to show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. This is because descriptive statements only deal with how the world works, in effect, what is. However, a normative statement deals with how the world ought to be, in other worlds, what should be the case, and thus lack logical connection. (2) Pro has not shown how they logically do connect; he is merely restating the descriptive statement. To show how the descriptive statement leads to the normative statement, at the very least, Pro must assume that different entities ought to be treated differently because of their differences. Householda) The winner of this debate is determined on the basis of what would be “net beneficial”. Thus, I am essentially arguing that in the case of ISPs having to price content at different prices in the case of net neutrality being rejected, negative consequences will follow. So my question is relevant towards the debate, and thus must be answered. b) It was conceded last round that rejection of net neutrality nevertheless allows for solving the problem of network congestion. This is an important concession on behalf of Pro. Nevertheless, he makes the argument that “ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use” and “due to the enormous cost of doing so”. But Pro has not justified neither claims, so at this point, we can only conclude that both are conjectures. Pro also argues that “a rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on actions by ISPs independent of legislation”, and thus we should favour the rejection of net neutrality. But a rejection of net neutrality does not result in an immediate solution. ISPs would still have to deal with a variety of questions such as how they ought to discern the importance of different content; which ones to put in the “fast lane” and how what form of pricing they should offer customers. In addition, a rejection of net neutrality legislation only entails that data should not be treated equally, it doesn’t immediately lead to the ISP enforcing the particular pricing scheme that Pro advocates; they merely have the freedom to do so. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality offers no particular advantage to an affirmation of net neutrality in managing web congestion. ConclusionPro still needs to address several criticisms that I had made in the previous round. Many of the criticisms that he has supposedly addressed – as seen in this round – still ultimately triumph. Furthermore, a number of original objections were raised in this round, also rendering Pro’s counterarguments to be unviable. Thus, Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Sources(1) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\n(Note that I have neglected to mention a variety of arguments that have little or no bearing on the debate, 10000 characters are often not enough when debating a topic like this) IntroductionPro claims that he should be the winner of this debate because “the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win.” But it was stated very explicitly in my 2nd Round that my strategy in this debate is not to provide positive arguments for net neutrality; instead I was to undermine Pro’s arguments, by refuting all of his contentions, and thus show that there are exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. If I do this successfully, then Pro has not met his BOP. But in doing so, I inadvertently affirm a case for net neutrality because in his 1st round, Pro has essentially set out the case for net neutrality, as he has already specified arguments in favour of net neutrality, such as:• A rejection of net neutrality enables “broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content.”• Net neutrality enables “equal treatment” and “ends [ending] discrimination in transmitting content”, which is desirable. Pro then seeks out to refute them. But, if I successfully refute his criticisms, then these arguments for net neutrality are affirmed by default. So I personally do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, because Pro already has done so for me.In addition, in other areas of the debate, I have also implicitly made arguments for net neutrality such as:• “ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet.”Freedom of Speech1. FCCa) Pro accepts that net neutrality as considered in this debate will be focussing on the principle or concept of net neutrality – in effect, all forms of net neutrality legislation. Pro takes issue with the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. He claims that the FCC already is highly transparent and democratic. This contradicts his later statement; that “net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members.” [the FCC] I don’t see how that is transparent and democratic (especially) at all. b) Pro also argues that my solution is “hypothetic” and that I would need to present “examples of specific legislation spelling out how exactly transparency is achieved and grants solvency.” I don’t. No matter how hypothetical the scenario presented is, it still should be treated because we are dealing with net neutrality as a principle. c) Pro also argues that “regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours.” But I am not advocating for the FCC to merely act “transparently”, but also “highly democratically”. 2. Chinaa) Pro’s argument is irrelevant. Even if we adopt the view that net neutrality would lead to infringements of freedom of speech with parallels to censorship in China, it still is a slippery slope.Consider the format of a slippery slope fallacy: “If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually too, therefore A should not happen.”We can see that Pro’s argument doesn’t overcome the problem of a slippery slope, because Z is simply changed from “censorship that mirrors China” to “censorship that has many parallels to censorship as seen in China.” b) Pro misuses MacKinnon’s article. Never in the article did MacKinnon talk about net neutrality, as a Control+F search of “neutrality.” would reveal. Instead, MacKinnon was talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act, a separate issue. Pro attempts to treat the issue lightly, making an argument based on history to suggest that “it is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a possibility we should at the very least be wary of.”c) Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those. d) It is merely established that FCC’s supposed infringement upon freedom of speech is a “possibility”. But that alone is not enough to provide a reason why we should reject net neutrality. We could still have a rationale for implementing net neutrality, but merely be wary over the FCC ie. make their actions “highly transparent and democratic”. ISPs1. Blocking ContentPro claims that it is entirely reasonable that ISPs are able to block out legitimate content because they are the providers of a service, and thus it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to do what they want with such a service. Note that Pro has conceded the BitTorrent point, and shifts his attention to the rights of ISPs as a whole. a) This argument is that it entails a closed Internet, because ISPs “favour certain uses” and “explicitly filter out content”, even though it is presumed within the framework of this debate that a closed internet is not desirable. Thus, we should not grant them this right. b) Pro does attempt to address this argument, though. He argues that “with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options for consumers, the internet remains open.” This is true, when considering the internet from a wide scope. It should be noted that my argument looks at the openness of the Internet from the perspective of a subscriber of an ISP company choosing to filter out content. Thus, it is claimed that on balance, the Internet still remains more open if net neutrality were rejected, than if it were not, because the introduction of “the FCC as a presider over the internet” is “a clear introduction to a closed internet”. d) Pro assumes that the FCC will abuse their power and promote actions that lead to a closed Internet. This is essentially his “freedom of speech” argument repackaged. It should be discounted due to the fact that compelling replies have already been given to such an argument, as seen above. e) His argument – that net neutrality places the decision of what is available on the Internet into the hands of five commission members – fails due to the same issue. We are dealing with net neutrality as a principle rather than specific forms of its legislation. Pro’s argument does not address net neutrality as a principle – net neutrality does not require 5 commission members to be in control – rather, it addresses specific forms of net neutrality.2. Innovationa) Pro has not addressed the descriptive-normative gap argument satisfactorily. Critics of his position do not deny that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. The problem is how to link the descriptive statement (what is) to a normative statement (what ought). b) Merely restating the descriptive statement does not get anyone anywhere in bridging this gap. In order to get from an is to an ought, Pro must “combine the [is] with an ethical principle or assumption.” (1) c) Pro’s analogy of a store fails. Pro notes that different types of date have a different cost to be supplied. But this doesn’t mean that different pricing schemes for different types of data should be adopted, because this is not necessarily in virtue of the type of data transmitted, but rather the ISPs’ method of data transmission. Tom MacKay explains:“ISPs…need to deal with connections between content providers and their own networks. When Game of Thrones freezes up, the problem could be saturation at the select locations where data leaves HBO and intersects with an ISP…the ISP must upgrade their network to accommodate traffic that might be generated by a few high-data companies.” (2)3. Europe a) The net neutrality regulations in Europe are recent – only established this year - so we can’t make any judgements empirically.b) Pro needs to show that the reason that because Internet is lacking in Europe is a consequence of the establishment of broadband as a public utility. He, and the article he refers to, only cites a correlation between the two, not a causal relationship. There are other factors that should be taken into account eg. regarding broadband coverage, the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that the U.S is much richer than many European countries such as Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria.c) Cheng et.al in their paper The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective show that the opposite is the case. They use a “game theoretic model” to evaluate the impact of net neutrality, and conclude that “the incentive to expand infrastructure capacity for the broadband service provider and its optimal capacity choice under net neutrality are higher than those under the no net neutrality regime except in some specific cases. Under net neutrality, the broadband service provider always invests in broadband infrastructure at the socially optimal level, but either under- or over-invests in infrastructure capacity in the absence of net neutrality.” (3) Householda) I don’t see how I have been selective with Pro’s arguments, and Pro doesn’t specify how so. Pro doesn’t specify which source provides justifications for his claims, so I can’t possibly evaluate his argument, considering that several of the sources are extremely long and for the most part, seemingly irrelevant. His quotation from “the Comcast article” fails to justify both claims that I called out upon. b) I have addressed Pro’s argument. I argued that rejection of net neutrality doesn’t result in an immediate solution of network congestion, as with the case with an affirmation of net neutrality, so neither offers an advantage. ConclusionBy refuting Pro’s arguments, I am in effect, making a case for net neutrality. Pro’s major arguments have been refuted. Thus, I have implicitly made a case for net neutrality, as well as refuted Pro’s arguments against it. The resolution is negated. (1) http://v.gd...(2) http://mic.com...(3) http://papers.ssrn.com...","Net neutrality.\nI'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?","The US shouldn't require net neutrality.\nNo one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a \"fast lane\" mail service is \"unfair,\" \"undemocratic,\" or \"bad for the economy.\" Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. The net neutrality debate turns on the distinction between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Net neutrality condemns both alike. Antitrust laws only condemn antitompetitive discrimination, so I for antitrust enforcement, which is more flexible, nuanced, and fact-based than a rigid net neutrality regime. It simply makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Antitrust laws allow these procompetitive benefits while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination. 1. An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. The Internet has always been a free and open market, shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Costs and consumer demand interact to set price, entry costs are low, and entrepreneurs have the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a free and open market, the Internet has thrived. In the absence of heavy government regulation, and \"due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before.\" [1] Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation. Historical data backs these claims up, showing that the less regulated broadband platform out-performs. Cable modem service, unburdened by \"open access\" mandates, spurted out to an early advantage. Then, when network sharing mandates on telephone networks were abruptly reduced, DSL surged. When DSL was regulated, network growth stagnated, but as soon as it was deregulated, DSL deployment took off. [2] Network sharing mandates were also imposed, and then eliminated, on fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) technology. Prior to the FCC's decision to eliminate fiber network \"open access\" rules,\" there was virtually no FTTH technology in the US. After deregulation, substantial investments were made, and now more than six million households subscribe to the Internet through ultra-fast fiber connections [3] 2. Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritize network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. For example, Lariat Wireless, a small ISP in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: \"most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost.\" Under a net neutrality regime, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift \"everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones.\" [3] There are other examples. Universities that don't allow peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks, for example. Or Virginia Broadband, which improves customer experience by prohibiting customers from \"excessive\" use of their network. Like Lariat Wireless, Virginia Broadband can offer quality Internet service at lower prices. The folks who benefit most are the \"economically disadvantaged,\" and those who use the Internet sparingly. [4] Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. A net neutrality requirement is a bad policy because it categorically condemns all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. 3. Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. Over more than 100 years, antitrust laws have developed to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. The main development in the antitrust laws has been a movement away from categorical rules (stuff like \"all monopolies are bad\") towards a more nuanced case-by-case approach. Instead of condemning business practices per se, courts require proof of harm to consumers or competition first. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, as well as being better for the economy by giving entrepreneurs latitude to experiment. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under the antitrust laws, the above business practice would be illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. You don't need further regulation to deal with anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [6] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. -- Net neutrality goes directly against most American consumers' values, such as competition, freedom of choice, and less government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has been marked by intense competition and rampant growth as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data also suggests regulations stunt growth. All these reasons support antitrust enforcement over net neutrality regulations. References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 55 (2011) [5] http://www.ntia.doc.gov... and http://vabb.com... [6] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\nMany thanks to my opponent for a great debate and prompt replies!-To confirm Opposition’s note that we are either accepting or rejecting net neutrality as a general principle/concept, this is correct-we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.-That said, Opposition argues that the logical connective cannot be made between the FCC infringing upon freedom of speech and the USFG rejecting net neutrality legislation because my arguments only address the FCC as the agency of said legislation. There are several flaws with Opposition’s argumentation here. First, Opposition overlooks the fact that ALL current network neutrality legislation would employ the FCC as the enforcer. Opposition’s sole example of legislation which does not require the FCC as enforcer is “for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner.” This, again, uses the FCC as enforcer; unless Opposition can produce an example to the contrary, this argument is irrelevant. My primary issue with this statement is that Opposition suggests that the FCC is not currently tasked with operating in a “highly transparent and democratic manner.” They absolutely are! Yet we constantly see with government a gap between what they are obligated to do, and what they do in reality. Unless Opposition presents examples of specific legislation spelling out exactly how such transparency is achieved and grants solvency, this is simply a hypothetical solution. Further, Opposition’s argument that a strong incentive to reinstate the fairness doctrine would be irrelevant in a ‘highly transparent’ organization is also making broad assumptions about the commission. Regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours, and their ideology will continue to influence their decisions regardless of whether we achieve the ‘transparency’ Opposition argues for.-I believe Opposition’s objections to the use of China as an example are unfounded for several reasons. First, Opposition argues that this is a slippery slope, that the US could never mirror China for internet censorship. Note that this was not the intent of my point; the use of China as an example is to show the similarities between censorship in China and what would be achieved by net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon states “The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar” in reference to SOPA and net neutrality [1]. Judging by the historical implications of the FCC I introduced in my last round, it is not unreasonable to suggest this as a possibility we should at the very least be wary of; as such, I reject Opposition’s argument of ‘slippery slope,’ for the reason that there is a very clear. Opposition then states “infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries.” It is this type of unguarded stance that allows our rights to become infringed upon. Regardless of socio-political differences between America and China, the characteristics inherent to human nature which cause the desire to influence the opinions of others in favor of self are clearly existent in both nations. Then of course there’s the fact that the FCC has already infringed upon our freedom of speech, something Opposition has yet to attempt to contradict.-A crux issue in this debate is the question of whether or not ISPs have the right to block out specific content, ie. decide what they make available to clients. I have already made it clear that I support this right for ISPs. Opposition has argued that this result in legitimate content being blocked from users; so what? ISPs as providers of a service should be able to decide exactly what their service entails. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I do agree that ISPs should be open with consumers about what they have access to-I simply believe they are within their rights to block sites if they wish. Secondly, even should each point in support of ISPs having this right be rejected, Opposition is still required to suggest reasons they should not have this right in order to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden Opposition has not upheld. I strongly urge Opposition to present reasons why this is outside the right of ISPs, as the only argument presented thus far is that it isn’t best for the consumer-this is why consumers change ISPs. This is where the free market comes in; if one company doesn’t satisfy the consumer, the market provides a new option to make a profit through satisfying this new market of consumers. -I apologize for omitting this from my first response, but I concede Opposition’s point that I never explicitly stated that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet. To clarify, my stance is that an open internet is more desirable, and further hold to my contention that net neutrality legislation will result in a net decrease in the openness of the internet. Opposition argues that allowing ISPs to restrict content access would result in a closed internet; I assert that this regardless is a net increase in the internet’s openness. First, with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options to emerge for consumers, the internet remains open, in contrast to net neutrality which introduces the FCC as presider over the internet, a clear introduction to a closed internet. Thus, net neutrality will result in a net reduction of internet openness, regardless of slight restriction by ISPs. We are, essentially, choosing the greater evil, which is government censorship/control of the internet. -I would also like to point out that net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members, as opposed to numerous ISPs and their corporation structures. I personally would choose option B any day. At a certain point, there is always someone choosing what is available to us for viewing; opting against net neutrality dilutes this into many, many more hands than the government, which is certainly preferable for the pursuit of freedom of speech and internet content availability.-For innovation: let me rephrase. These are different and are considered different by ISPs because they use differing amounts of bandwidth. Stipulating disconnects between descriptive and normative statements will not eliminate the technological differences between each of these; Opposition is essentially avoiding the recognition that there is a reason for ISPs to regard each uniquely. Just as we place prices on items in stores based off of the cost of production, ISPs place costs on types of data because of cost to supply it.-With regards to regulations in Europe: There most certainly are net neutrality regulations in place in Europe [3,4,5]. Further, by regulations in Europe, I am referring additionally to the European regulation framework that establishes public broadband as a public utility; the service-based competition system established by law has resulted in a system where no new investment or infrastructure is introduced into the system, causing a net loss in innovation. Broadband investment per household in the US is twice that in Europe; coverage is better; and basic broadband is cheaper in the US than in Europe [8,9]. The discrepancy between your statistics and mine can be found in the fact that the cost comparison of broadband in Europe is strictly for broadband, not a bundle of broadband, TV, and phone, which appears to be the focus of your cited statistics. France is the sole exception here; France actually has exceptional broadband services nd prices relative to the rest of Europe.Householda) ISPs may adopt any model of pricing they decide upon; they are independent businesses supplying a service to a consumer. I would contend that net benefits would be achieved in rejecting net neutrality, which I feel I have made sufficiently clear.b) My claims have been justified; the sources included in my last argument confirm this. Further, Opposition is being selective in quoting my arguments. I concede that both allow for lessening of congestion; I also state “A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.” Thus I hold net benefits here stronger than Opposition’s case does.-I feel I have sufficiently responded to each argument presented by the Opposition. However, I also feel the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win. Based off of the resolution, Opposition is tasked with arguing in favor of net neutrality; Opposition has failed to present any substantial arguments in favor of network neutrality, including why ISPs should not be able to engage in independent business models. Net benefits requires Opposition to create a clear image of how net neutrality is beneficial, not simply to attack the status quo. Should we not see this stance develop, it is impossible to assign net benefits to Opposition.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] https://gigaom.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.bbc.com... [8] http://www.nationalreview.com...[9] http://www.heritage.org...","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\nBut with that said, let’s get down to business. In this Final Round, I will provide a final criticism of Pro’s arguments, helping to tie up some loose ends along the way, and also clarify a variety of points that I have made. In addition, I will also use this round to attempt to convince readers that they should vote for Con, rather than Pro. The FCCPro focusses a significant amount of his final round to focus on the FCC, and makes a variety of criticisms, many surrounding on the on the concepts of “principle” and “concept. ” Thus, it is important to clarify what exactly is a principle, or a concept. The Oxford English Dictionary (Kindle Edition) defines principle as:“A general idea of plan, although the details are not yet established. ”Also by the OED, concept is defined as: “An abstract idea”However, Pro argues that we should focus on current net neutrality proposals because “debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. ” But, given the definitions of “principle” and “concept” this is clearly absurd. As per the definition of principle, we are considering net neutrality in general, and considering it as if “the details are not established. ” As per the definition of concept, we are to focus on net neutrality as “an abstract idea”. Therefore, Pro’s rebuttal bears little relevance; by attempting to focus this debate on current net neutrality legislation, regardless of its immediate relevance, he is destroying the whole purpose of debating a principle, or concept. Previously, I gave an example of a scenario where Pro’s arguments that the FCC has no interest in representing freedom of speech are nullified – where the FCC regulates ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. Pro critiques this by questioning the possibility of the FCC acting in a “highly transparent and democratic manner” and argues that this is an “unachieved goal for decades” and that the whole point of government is “built around the concept of being transparent and democratic. ” This rebuttal misses the point of my hypothetical scenario. The feasibility of this scenario bears little relevance because the whole point of this hypothetical scenario is to be far-fetched, because in doing so, it shows that Pro’s freedom of speech argument does not apply in all scenarios, and thus, we can’t reject net neutrality as a principle, or concept – merely recent forms of its legislation. One final argument relevant to the FCC that Pro makes against my argument that TVs and radios can’t be compared with the Internet, because of the way information is transferred in each medium. Pro responds by citing Section 706 and Title II. But this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument was not to do with how the FCC oversees the various mediums, but how they act in regulating information. In addition, Pro has not elaborated at all on how net neutrality fails to take into consideration differences between such mediums, and how I have undermined my own case. ChinaBy the end of the debate, Pro concedes that he was only making a comparison. In contrast, at the beginning of the debate, he was adamant about the possibility of the US’s internet being similar to China’s, even invoking Negri’s statement that “Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day. ” Pro is correct in saying that we should note similarities between the two, and the outcomes of various policies in other countries. But it we only do this, then that leaves Pro with no real argument to enforce, and he does not sufficiently clarify his position on this issue, especially considering his change of view since Round 2. If he is still arguing that net neutrality would lead to Internet with similarities to that seen in China, then it still is a slippery slope. If he is arguing that we merely should be cautious, and take this into consideration, then there is no rationale for rejecting net neutrality; we could still accept it, but just be cautious. ISPsIt is important to note that a essentially of this section (as left by Pro in his final round) is based on the assumption that the FCC is against freedom of speech, and would set limits on what one would do on the Internet. This is an assumption that has been debated throughout this debate, but falls short of establishing that a net benefit would be reached without net neutrality. This is because – as I have argued for many times in this debate - it takes a narrow scope, rather than a broad scope regarding net neutrality – it is focussing on specific forms of net neutrality legislation, rather than net neutrality as a principle, or a concept. Once again, Pro has failed to show how the descriptive statement to the normative statement. He merely complains that my attempts to “philosophically analyse this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue. ” However, firstly, as Pro himself notes, I have conceded that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. However, it is completely false to say that I am “looking for a debate on economics” as Pro claims. It is also untrue that the real issue is “that content is priced differently as a result of product cost differential”. As a matter of fact, I argue that the real issue is to do with moral philosophy. This is because Pro is arguing that ISPs ought to be charging differently based on the type of content. Naturally, this leads into the realm of moral philosophy, because such a realm deals with what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be done, what ought not to be done; the normative aspects. Of course, positive economics is relevant to some extent. However, in this case, it is concerning the descriptive aspect of content, but not what ought to happen; the normative aspect. Pro hasn’t really addressed this problem; instead, he keeps trying to push us back to a debate on the descriptive statement. Pro appeals to the fact that prices should be varying because to make a profit because “it is common business practice”. However, this doesn’t lead logically to the conclusion that the prices should be varying. Simply because something is common business practice does not mean that this is right, or should be allowed in policy. Consequently, we have seen no compelling reason that ISPs should be pricing content differently, as per their bandwidth needs. We have merely seen that different content have different bandwidth needs. InnovationOne thing to note is that Pro has completely dropped his argument that there is empirical evidence showing that regulation of telecommunications companies in Europe leads to less innovation, and has negative effects, such as limiting consumer access to the Internet. Previously, I argued that this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence he has provided, because it does not show a causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, I provided a study by Chang et. al which shows that net neutrality has the opposite effect on innovation as Pro claims; it is actually beneficial in regard to innovation (especially infrastructure), rather than detrimental. Pro has not attempted to refute this evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no good reasons to believe that innovation will be negatively affected by net neutrality, only positively affected. HouseholdPro appears to concede that an ISP’s pricing plan as advocated by him is also dependant on the ISP’s actions. However, he still argues that network congestion is more likely to be solved without net neutrality than with net neutrality. His argument relies on the premise that “with net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems. ” Firstly, this is completely unjustified. It is also clearly false. In the previous round, I brought up McKay’s observation that network congestion is also due to the ISP’s method of data transmission between different servers. We can extend this to show that with net neutrality, ISPs have an incentive to upgrade this servers. This stems from the fact that because ISPs are not able to introduce their pricing schemes, they must find different ways to deal with net congestion, such as upgrading their systems. Conversely, if net neutrality was not introduced, and ISPs were to introduce a pricing scheme as advocated by Pro, they would have no incentive in upgrading their systems, because the problem is already solved. Thus, Pro’s logic falls back on him. ConclusionThis debate took an interesting direction (largely because I misread Pro’s Round 1 and thought that he had the sole BOP for a while), but nevertheless, as we are at the end of the debate, I contend that there are good reasons why the audience should vote Con. (1) Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof, because all of his arguments fail in one way or another. There are no successful arguments against net neutrality offered by Pro. (2) I have shown that by refuting Pro’s arguments against net neutrality, I am implicitly making a case for net neutrality, due to the way Pro presents his case. This remained undisputed by Pro by the end of the debate. (3) Pro has dropped many of his core arguments. For instance, his argument about Europe’s internet, and his argument that a rejection of net neutrality fuels competition (note that he never addressed this, after I called out his bare assertion in Round 2. ) (4) I have made positive arguments that have been unrefuted and untouched by Pro. For instance, net neutrality is beneficial towards innovation (from Cheng et. al) and that net neutrality helps dissipate monopolies and duopolies (Round 2). The resolution has been negated.","ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality\nTaking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\nI shall do this by refuting all his contentions, and in doing so, show that there are no exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. Pro essentially argues that the USFG should reject net neutrality because “net neutrality does not, [in fact], result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. ” Note that in order for him to use this kind of reasoning and reach the position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, he needs to make the assumption that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, which he has not done. Personally, I do believe that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, so I’m on his side on this, but I reject all contentions that he makes in attempting to show that net neutrality takes steps towards a closed internet. Let’s see his contentions. Freedom of Speech Pro argues that enforcement of net neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. According to him, “anyone claiming that new network neutrality regulations through the FCC will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying, or deluded. ” Given that he has made a very strong claim, one would expect him to give solid reasons, or evidence, in support of his claim. Unfortunately, he has not done so. Essentially, his argument amounts to that the FCC doesn’t support freedom of speech - as a matter of fact, it is against freedom of speech - and consequently, enforcement of net neutrality laws would, by giving the government more control of the Internet, thus stifling freedom of speech. Such an argument is problematic in several ways:(a) Regarding his claim that the FCC is not supportive, and never will be supportive of freedom of speech, he gives no reasoning or evidence whatsoever. Essentially, his argument amounts to a bare-assertion fallacy. (b) Enforcement of net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet. This is because the FCC does not seek to regulate the Internet, instead, it is regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services. Perhaps in anticipation of (b), Pro creates a slippery slope argument. He observes that the Chinese government strongly regulates telecommunication industries in China, thus promoting censorship and the rejection of freedom of speech. Thus, Pro argues, net neutrality regulation may be the first step further governmental control and restriction over the Internet. There are multiple things wrong with this argument:(a) Slippery slope arguments “[avoid] engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. ” Thus, they are fallacious (1)(b)There is a big difference between the way regulation of telecommunication industries as advocated by the supporter of net neutrality in the US and the way telecommunication industries are regulated in China. In China, actual website content is blocked, while enforcement of net neutrality laws only lead to the regulation of how the telecommunication industry can transfer information on the Internet. Thus, Pro needs to give reasons to how net neutrality regulation would lead to the type of censorship observed in China. (c) China and the U. S cannot be compared, because of the different socio-political situations between the two countries. For one, the Chinese government has a strong incentive/motive in committing acts of internet censorship and restricting freedom of speech - eg. to silence dissent and preserve the political system present in China by restricting knowledge of other political systems - while the U. S government does not. Second, the U. S is far more democratic than China - it’s citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy, for an example of Internet policy, look at SOPA. Thus, we should be skeptical over his claims that net neutrality would eventually lead to a closed internet in this sense. Net Neutrality and Competition Pro argues that Comcast’s blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified, and that “arguing this [Comcast’s actions] as a supporting factor of net neutrality is ludicrous. ”(a) Adherents of net neutrality do not use Comcast’s actions as a reason for promoting net neutrality. Rather, they use this as an example to illustrate the fact that ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet, thus acting as a reason against Pro’s position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, rather than a positive reason for net neutrality. (b) Pro cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast was blocking torrent sites housing pirated content. Rather, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, as his source indicates. (2) It is important to note that BitTorrent is not solely used for pirating content - there plenty of legitimate uses such as legally downloading game updates, and the Internet Archive - because BitTorrent is merely a means to spread information. (3) Thus, blocking BitTorrent traffic would also infringe upon legal uses of the technology. (c) Pro has not shown that it is the “prerogative” of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Indeed, it could be argued that the sole purpose of ISPs is to provide Internet access, and thus they should not be controlling what their clients are doing on the Internet, because it is out of their bounds. Pro also provides several reasons why rejecting net-neutrality laws do not promote monopolies. For instance, he argues that net neutrality will not end monopolies, instead it makes it harder to end monopolies. (a) Advocates of net neutrality do not argue that net neutrality regulation will end monopolies; instead they are arguing that rejection of net neutrality will promote the development of monopolies/duopolies etc, or that net neutrality regulation will make it easier to end monopolies/duopolies etc. Thus, Pro’s statement is non-topical. (b) Essentially all of this segment regarding competition is pure assertion. Pro has not justified any of the claims he makes here, and thus on this basis alone, all of his claims should be discounted until he provides justification. Innovation (a) Pro claims that Internet content such as “an online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book” should not be treated equally, because they are not equal in importance. But the importance of such content is not intrinsic, but relative to different people. Thus, the question of whose perspective discerns the importance of online content is raised. (b) Pro argues that because the various content on the Internet are different, they ought to be treated differently. However, he makes the jump from a descriptive statement (various content on the Internet are different) to a normative statement (they ought to be treated differently) arbitrarily, and does not show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. Pro uses an analogy of a household in order to illustrate why rejecting net neutrality would be beneficial, and extends this logic towards an entire community. Fundamentally, this is a question of how to deal with network congestion, and Pro argues that rejecting net neutrality would help solve this problem. However: (a) In the case that net neutrality is rejected, and ISPs are able to deal with network congestion through allowing in variation of pricing Internet access according to how one uses the Internet, Pro does not elaborate on which method ISPs are to do this. Do customers sign up to an Internet package which is optimised for what they are to do with the Internet (eg. a package optimised for watching Netflix)? Do customers sign up to a rather blank Internet package, and the pricing is determined later on how customers use their Internet? Both are in my view, problematic, and I would like Pro to elaborate on the specific details of his view. (b) The fact that the two people in the household are unable to complete simple activities on the Internet such as Google searches (this also applies when Pro’s argument is extended to the community) does not mean that net neutrality should be rejected. S. Derek Turner notes that net neutrality regulation as pushed for still “leave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management methods. ” (4) Thus, the benefit of being able to address network congestion effectively as argued by proponents of net neutrality rejection is not exclusive to their position, and net neutrality still allows room to fix these problems. Pro claims that “similar regulations are place in Europe”. However, what regulations are he talking about? Net neutrality regulations? His Source 4 states that there are no established net neutrality regulations in the European Union. So where in Europe is he talking about? Regardless of this, it is a factual mistake to claim that “broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US”, when in reality, broadband service is actually much more expensive in the U. S when compared to many areas in Europe (3 times more expensive than in the U. K and France) (5) Conclusion In this round, I have refuted the core of Pro’s arguments, showing that none of his 3 main contentions stand up to scrutiny, and as a result, show that there are no benefits (exclusive) in rejecting net neutrality. Thus, Pro has not affirmed his burden of proof, and the resolution is negated. Sources (1) . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2) . https://torrentfreak.com...(3) . http://www.makeuseof.com...(4) . http://www.freepress.net...(5) . http://www.bbc.com...","Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed\nRecently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a \"new technology or business model\" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to \"partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies\" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this \"monopoly\" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a \"regulatory regime\". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs \"pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others\" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: \"Among our nation\"s 12 largest internet service providers,\" he told the audience, \"domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.\" I ask him to elaborate. \"As I\"ve seen it and heard it,\" he says, \"Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that \"even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.\" \" By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren\"t sticking it to the man. We aren\"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from \"Banksy\" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search \"If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality\". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn\"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: \"The European Union\"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply.\" In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will \"throttle\" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don\"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to \"throttle\" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were \"pilloried in the court of public opinion\" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...","Network neutrality\nNet neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\nNetwork Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP’s (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn’t be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like “equal treatment” and “ending discrimination in transmitting content,” all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn’t accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to ‘end discrimination in transmitting content?’ Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let’s say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let’s expand this example to an entire community. ISP’s being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn’t because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it ‘protects freedom of speech’ through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn’t caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP’s to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don’t have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the ‘freedom of speech’ claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn’t exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn’t want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China’s strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen’s Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that “under the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day” [5]. Don’t misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast’s blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP’s to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP’s to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP’s pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn’t. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor’s content or specific sites it doesn’t want to give access to. In fact, it’s good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP’s actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn’t infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don’t have, they aren’t paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com...","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\n-My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as “a general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.” Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that “it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer,” an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition’s only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which “requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner,” with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition’s solution for corruption and the FCC’s blatant censorship is to make them “highly transparent and democratic,” yet doesn’t have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a “highly democratic” onto a ‘highly transparent’ does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition’s arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition’s solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition’s interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that “Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those.” Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that “there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content” directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition’s attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn’t change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition’s case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition’s exclusion of current legislation is the FCC’s history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition’s only proposed argument against the right of ISP’s to price their services freely is that “they can’t be trusted to govern the internet” and “it would hurt the consumer.” As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition’s attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld.","The US shouldn't require net neutrality.\nTim Wu, the guy who coined the term \"net neutrality,\" notes the importance of \"differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law.\" This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says \"net neutrality stimulates competition\" because, \"if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing.\" First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that \"big companies would be unable to compete with each other\" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says \"if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see.\" As a result, Con argues, \"small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground.\" First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be \"banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground\" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says \"if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds.\" Again, those \"fast speeds\" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the \"power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers.\" But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [6] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.","Net neutrality\nOk For the last time I never said Net Neutrality. (which I'm now just going to say NN for) has been a law. I said I was a founding principle of the internet. If in your last round you claim I said it was a law you're either intentionally using a straw man or your an idiot. Then you say ebay and amazon couldn't pay to have other online shopping sites block because of anti-trust laws. Also in your final paragraph you say I never addressed you anti-trust argument. Yes I did earlier I just got tired of doing it every round. I will say it again. Anti-trust laws don't work because regulation of ISP's are horrible. Then you say that FCC guy wasn't payed by ISP's and even if he does it doesn't matter. 1. Yes he was funded by version 2. You would trust people who are getting payed by people to talk their side. So if Bud light payed a scientist to say you should drink 10,000 of these every year because it's super good for you you would trust him? If you say no same principle applies here. And I already addressed you're final paragraph. Like I said either way NN passed the FCC. I'm happy about it. The internet will continue to be a awesome place. One more thing. You mentioned government regulation like it should never exist. However in some situations it should be there. You're for affirmative action on your big issues page. Government regulation. Am I saying NN is as important as minorities having equal rights, no. However in some situations government should have regulations.","Network neutrality\nSome data should be allowed to move faster"],"string":"[\n \"Network neutrality\\nNet Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem\",\n \"The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality\\nTaking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.\",\n \"The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.\\n\\\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such \\\"network neutrality\\\" obligations on broadband providers.\\\" http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...\",\n \"The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.\\n\\\"This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come\\\" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. \\\"Let's look at the Verizon example given\\\" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. \\\"Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality.\\\" Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. \\\"dumb internet\\\" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The \\\"stupid\\\" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. \\\"consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use .\\\" Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. \\\"My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs.\\\" I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. \\\"consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet\\\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. \\\"allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?\\\" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. \\\"ISPs are profit motivated.\\\" Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. \\\"who owns the Internet.\\\" I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. \\\"Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies\\\" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. \\\"the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network.\\\" If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. \\\"we inhibit future improvements and adaptations.\\\" Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. \\\"ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites.\\\" Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... \\\"This is completely false and baseless claim.\\\" They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. \\\"ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets.\\\" Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider.\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\nThanks, Pro, for your quick yet substantive rebuttals. Freedom of SpeechFirst, I would like to provide a general criticism of Pro’s argument that the FCC would through net neutrality, infringe upon freedom of speech. Note that the resolution of the debate concerns whether “the USFG should reject net neutrality.” But he has not specified exactly which form of net neutrality legislation the USFG ought the reject. Thus, we are left to concluding that he is arguing that the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; a concept - in effect, all forms of net neutrality. Pro too notes that he was quite interested in “the concept of net neutrality”. As a result, this debate should focus on net neutrality as a principle of a concept. However, his argument - the FCC would likely infringe upon freedom of speech through net neutrality – is not sufficient to reach the conclusion – the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; in effect, all forms of net neutrality. This is because Pro’s argument has a very narrow scope; it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer, rather than net neutrality itself. In effect, his argument does not take into consideration potential net neutrality legislation; for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. In this scenario, it may be that the FCC has a strong incentive in reinvoking the Fairness Doctrine, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Pro argues that because previously, the FCC has regulated content on TV and radio and was allowed to decide what was content-neutral, the FCC is likely to infringe upon freedom of speech on the Internet. But the problem is that the FCC was allowed to decide on their interpretation on what was content-neutral. As noted, the resolution is dealing with net neutrality as a principle. In legislation of net neutrality where the FCC was not allowed to define “content neutral”, this argument would no longer apply. In addition, Pro neglected to mention that structural differences between the operation of TV + Radio and the Internet. Leonhardt notes that:“the Internet “decouples” the strong link between transmission and content; therefore, there is nothing on the Internet that is directly analogous to a television or radio broadcaster. Television broadcasters both transmit data and control its content, so that when a person watches NBC, they are only seeing NBC’s programming. Conversely, on the Internet, the signal comes to a home from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as AT&T, Comcast, Road Runner, or Verizon.57 However, once a consumer has a signal, they can view any content at all—even content created by a competing ISP.” (1) Consequently, we also should by default reject Pro’s slippery slope argument regarding the possibility of net neutrality leading to censorship as seen in China, because it falls to the same “general criticism” I already made above. But even if we do not reject such an argument by default we could make a variety of criticisms. Firstly, I noted in the 2nd round that Pro’s argument is logically fallacious because it commits the slippery slope fallacy. Pro never responded to this, although he did indicate that he would eventually respond to all arguments, so I’ll wait for him to do so. I also argued that because of the socio-political differences between in America and China, it is unlikely that net neutrality would lead to censorship like seen in China. Pro does not dispute this point; he merely argues that government officials still have the intention of keeping in power. However, this is irrelevant, because I am arguing that regardless of the government’s will to stay in power, infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries. CompetitionPreviously, I argued that because there are legitimate uses of BitTorrent, Comcast should not have blocked BitTorrent traffic. Pro’s reply misses the mark. Firstly, he argues that the “site should solely be halted because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities”. However, Comcast was not solely blocking sites that hold pirated content available through BitTorrent, they were blocking BitTorrent traffic in general. In addition, there many examples of sites that use BitTorrent for solely legal purposes and have no pirated content. I provided the example of the Internet Archive in my previous round. To elaborate upon my last round, I also suggested that in order to download and update specific games, one would use a client that is dependent on BitTorrent technology. Furthermore, Pro shifts burden-of-proof. His argument is dependent on the assumption (aka. Hidden premise) that ISPs have the right to block out specific content ie. BitTorrent traffic, thus he is expected to defend the premise, just like any other premise. I don’t have to provide an argument against this assumption, I merely have to ensure that his hidden premise is not affirmed, and I can do this by providing arguments of my own, criticising his arguments for the hidden premise, or both. In the 2nd Round, Pro also notes that he is arguing that net neutrality would take steps towards a closed Internet, rather than an open Internet, and thus it should be rejected. I showed that in order for this to lead logically to the USFG rejecting net neutrality, Pro would have to assume that an open Internet is desirable, and that a closed Internet is undesirable. I noted that I too support an open internet. Thus, this debate is run on the parameters that an open Internet is desirable, whilst a closed Internet is undesirable. Recall that the definition of closed Internet that is applied to this debate is: “where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.”If Pro is willing to defend Comcast’s blocking of BitTorrent traffic/websites - which is a textbook example of “explicitly filter[ing] content” - he is in effect defending actions leading to a closed Internet. However, this makes his case inconsistent, because he is arguing that net neutrality leads to a closed Internet, and thus should be rejected while at the same time supporting other actions which lead to a closed Internet. Innovationa) Pro misread me; I was not affirming that the value of the examples to be intrinsic, I was saying that those were relative. For instance, I would place the highest value on the e-Book, then the online calculator, and next-to-no value on the funny home video. In contrast, somebody may else may have the exact opposite. If ISPs were to regulate content as Pro proposes, then the problem of how the ISP should discern the value of each of these examples is raised. b) I argued that Pro needs to show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. This is because descriptive statements only deal with how the world works, in effect, what is. However, a normative statement deals with how the world ought to be, in other worlds, what should be the case, and thus lack logical connection. (2) Pro has not shown how they logically do connect; he is merely restating the descriptive statement. To show how the descriptive statement leads to the normative statement, at the very least, Pro must assume that different entities ought to be treated differently because of their differences. Householda) The winner of this debate is determined on the basis of what would be “net beneficial”. Thus, I am essentially arguing that in the case of ISPs having to price content at different prices in the case of net neutrality being rejected, negative consequences will follow. So my question is relevant towards the debate, and thus must be answered. b) It was conceded last round that rejection of net neutrality nevertheless allows for solving the problem of network congestion. This is an important concession on behalf of Pro. Nevertheless, he makes the argument that “ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use” and “due to the enormous cost of doing so”. But Pro has not justified neither claims, so at this point, we can only conclude that both are conjectures. Pro also argues that “a rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on actions by ISPs independent of legislation”, and thus we should favour the rejection of net neutrality. But a rejection of net neutrality does not result in an immediate solution. ISPs would still have to deal with a variety of questions such as how they ought to discern the importance of different content; which ones to put in the “fast lane” and how what form of pricing they should offer customers. In addition, a rejection of net neutrality legislation only entails that data should not be treated equally, it doesn’t immediately lead to the ISP enforcing the particular pricing scheme that Pro advocates; they merely have the freedom to do so. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality offers no particular advantage to an affirmation of net neutrality in managing web congestion. ConclusionPro still needs to address several criticisms that I had made in the previous round. Many of the criticisms that he has supposedly addressed – as seen in this round – still ultimately triumph. Furthermore, a number of original objections were raised in this round, also rendering Pro’s counterarguments to be unviable. Thus, Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Sources(1) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\n(Note that I have neglected to mention a variety of arguments that have little or no bearing on the debate, 10000 characters are often not enough when debating a topic like this) IntroductionPro claims that he should be the winner of this debate because “the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win.” But it was stated very explicitly in my 2nd Round that my strategy in this debate is not to provide positive arguments for net neutrality; instead I was to undermine Pro’s arguments, by refuting all of his contentions, and thus show that there are exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. If I do this successfully, then Pro has not met his BOP. But in doing so, I inadvertently affirm a case for net neutrality because in his 1st round, Pro has essentially set out the case for net neutrality, as he has already specified arguments in favour of net neutrality, such as:• A rejection of net neutrality enables “broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content.”• Net neutrality enables “equal treatment” and “ends [ending] discrimination in transmitting content”, which is desirable. Pro then seeks out to refute them. But, if I successfully refute his criticisms, then these arguments for net neutrality are affirmed by default. So I personally do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, because Pro already has done so for me.In addition, in other areas of the debate, I have also implicitly made arguments for net neutrality such as:• “ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet.”Freedom of Speech1. FCCa) Pro accepts that net neutrality as considered in this debate will be focussing on the principle or concept of net neutrality – in effect, all forms of net neutrality legislation. Pro takes issue with the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. He claims that the FCC already is highly transparent and democratic. This contradicts his later statement; that “net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members.” [the FCC] I don’t see how that is transparent and democratic (especially) at all. b) Pro also argues that my solution is “hypothetic” and that I would need to present “examples of specific legislation spelling out how exactly transparency is achieved and grants solvency.” I don’t. No matter how hypothetical the scenario presented is, it still should be treated because we are dealing with net neutrality as a principle. c) Pro also argues that “regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours.” But I am not advocating for the FCC to merely act “transparently”, but also “highly democratically”. 2. Chinaa) Pro’s argument is irrelevant. Even if we adopt the view that net neutrality would lead to infringements of freedom of speech with parallels to censorship in China, it still is a slippery slope.Consider the format of a slippery slope fallacy: “If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually too, therefore A should not happen.”We can see that Pro’s argument doesn’t overcome the problem of a slippery slope, because Z is simply changed from “censorship that mirrors China” to “censorship that has many parallels to censorship as seen in China.” b) Pro misuses MacKinnon’s article. Never in the article did MacKinnon talk about net neutrality, as a Control+F search of “neutrality.” would reveal. Instead, MacKinnon was talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act, a separate issue. Pro attempts to treat the issue lightly, making an argument based on history to suggest that “it is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a possibility we should at the very least be wary of.”c) Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those. d) It is merely established that FCC’s supposed infringement upon freedom of speech is a “possibility”. But that alone is not enough to provide a reason why we should reject net neutrality. We could still have a rationale for implementing net neutrality, but merely be wary over the FCC ie. make their actions “highly transparent and democratic”. ISPs1. Blocking ContentPro claims that it is entirely reasonable that ISPs are able to block out legitimate content because they are the providers of a service, and thus it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to do what they want with such a service. Note that Pro has conceded the BitTorrent point, and shifts his attention to the rights of ISPs as a whole. a) This argument is that it entails a closed Internet, because ISPs “favour certain uses” and “explicitly filter out content”, even though it is presumed within the framework of this debate that a closed internet is not desirable. Thus, we should not grant them this right. b) Pro does attempt to address this argument, though. He argues that “with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options for consumers, the internet remains open.” This is true, when considering the internet from a wide scope. It should be noted that my argument looks at the openness of the Internet from the perspective of a subscriber of an ISP company choosing to filter out content. Thus, it is claimed that on balance, the Internet still remains more open if net neutrality were rejected, than if it were not, because the introduction of “the FCC as a presider over the internet” is “a clear introduction to a closed internet”. d) Pro assumes that the FCC will abuse their power and promote actions that lead to a closed Internet. This is essentially his “freedom of speech” argument repackaged. It should be discounted due to the fact that compelling replies have already been given to such an argument, as seen above. e) His argument – that net neutrality places the decision of what is available on the Internet into the hands of five commission members – fails due to the same issue. We are dealing with net neutrality as a principle rather than specific forms of its legislation. Pro’s argument does not address net neutrality as a principle – net neutrality does not require 5 commission members to be in control – rather, it addresses specific forms of net neutrality.2. Innovationa) Pro has not addressed the descriptive-normative gap argument satisfactorily. Critics of his position do not deny that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. The problem is how to link the descriptive statement (what is) to a normative statement (what ought). b) Merely restating the descriptive statement does not get anyone anywhere in bridging this gap. In order to get from an is to an ought, Pro must “combine the [is] with an ethical principle or assumption.” (1) c) Pro’s analogy of a store fails. Pro notes that different types of date have a different cost to be supplied. But this doesn’t mean that different pricing schemes for different types of data should be adopted, because this is not necessarily in virtue of the type of data transmitted, but rather the ISPs’ method of data transmission. Tom MacKay explains:“ISPs…need to deal with connections between content providers and their own networks. When Game of Thrones freezes up, the problem could be saturation at the select locations where data leaves HBO and intersects with an ISP…the ISP must upgrade their network to accommodate traffic that might be generated by a few high-data companies.” (2)3. Europe a) The net neutrality regulations in Europe are recent – only established this year - so we can’t make any judgements empirically.b) Pro needs to show that the reason that because Internet is lacking in Europe is a consequence of the establishment of broadband as a public utility. He, and the article he refers to, only cites a correlation between the two, not a causal relationship. There are other factors that should be taken into account eg. regarding broadband coverage, the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that the U.S is much richer than many European countries such as Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria.c) Cheng et.al in their paper The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective show that the opposite is the case. They use a “game theoretic model” to evaluate the impact of net neutrality, and conclude that “the incentive to expand infrastructure capacity for the broadband service provider and its optimal capacity choice under net neutrality are higher than those under the no net neutrality regime except in some specific cases. Under net neutrality, the broadband service provider always invests in broadband infrastructure at the socially optimal level, but either under- or over-invests in infrastructure capacity in the absence of net neutrality.” (3) Householda) I don’t see how I have been selective with Pro’s arguments, and Pro doesn’t specify how so. Pro doesn’t specify which source provides justifications for his claims, so I can’t possibly evaluate his argument, considering that several of the sources are extremely long and for the most part, seemingly irrelevant. His quotation from “the Comcast article” fails to justify both claims that I called out upon. b) I have addressed Pro’s argument. I argued that rejection of net neutrality doesn’t result in an immediate solution of network congestion, as with the case with an affirmation of net neutrality, so neither offers an advantage. ConclusionBy refuting Pro’s arguments, I am in effect, making a case for net neutrality. Pro’s major arguments have been refuted. Thus, I have implicitly made a case for net neutrality, as well as refuted Pro’s arguments against it. The resolution is negated. (1) http://v.gd...(2) http://mic.com...(3) http://papers.ssrn.com...\",\n \"Net neutrality.\\nI'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?\",\n \"The US shouldn't require net neutrality.\\nNo one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a \\\"fast lane\\\" mail service is \\\"unfair,\\\" \\\"undemocratic,\\\" or \\\"bad for the economy.\\\" Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. The net neutrality debate turns on the distinction between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Net neutrality condemns both alike. Antitrust laws only condemn antitompetitive discrimination, so I for antitrust enforcement, which is more flexible, nuanced, and fact-based than a rigid net neutrality regime. It simply makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Antitrust laws allow these procompetitive benefits while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination. 1. An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. The Internet has always been a free and open market, shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Costs and consumer demand interact to set price, entry costs are low, and entrepreneurs have the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a free and open market, the Internet has thrived. In the absence of heavy government regulation, and \\\"due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before.\\\" [1] Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation. Historical data backs these claims up, showing that the less regulated broadband platform out-performs. Cable modem service, unburdened by \\\"open access\\\" mandates, spurted out to an early advantage. Then, when network sharing mandates on telephone networks were abruptly reduced, DSL surged. When DSL was regulated, network growth stagnated, but as soon as it was deregulated, DSL deployment took off. [2] Network sharing mandates were also imposed, and then eliminated, on fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) technology. Prior to the FCC's decision to eliminate fiber network \\\"open access\\\" rules,\\\" there was virtually no FTTH technology in the US. After deregulation, substantial investments were made, and now more than six million households subscribe to the Internet through ultra-fast fiber connections [3] 2. Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritize network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. For example, Lariat Wireless, a small ISP in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: \\\"most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost.\\\" Under a net neutrality regime, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift \\\"everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones.\\\" [3] There are other examples. Universities that don't allow peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks, for example. Or Virginia Broadband, which improves customer experience by prohibiting customers from \\\"excessive\\\" use of their network. Like Lariat Wireless, Virginia Broadband can offer quality Internet service at lower prices. The folks who benefit most are the \\\"economically disadvantaged,\\\" and those who use the Internet sparingly. [4] Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. A net neutrality requirement is a bad policy because it categorically condemns all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. 3. Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. Over more than 100 years, antitrust laws have developed to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. The main development in the antitrust laws has been a movement away from categorical rules (stuff like \\\"all monopolies are bad\\\") towards a more nuanced case-by-case approach. Instead of condemning business practices per se, courts require proof of harm to consumers or competition first. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, as well as being better for the economy by giving entrepreneurs latitude to experiment. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under the antitrust laws, the above business practice would be illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. You don't need further regulation to deal with anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that \\\"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\\\" [6] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. -- Net neutrality goes directly against most American consumers' values, such as competition, freedom of choice, and less government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has been marked by intense competition and rampant growth as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data also suggests regulations stunt growth. All these reasons support antitrust enforcement over net neutrality regulations. References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 55 (2011) [5] http://www.ntia.doc.gov... and http://vabb.com... [6] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\nMany thanks to my opponent for a great debate and prompt replies!-To confirm Opposition’s note that we are either accepting or rejecting net neutrality as a general principle/concept, this is correct-we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.-That said, Opposition argues that the logical connective cannot be made between the FCC infringing upon freedom of speech and the USFG rejecting net neutrality legislation because my arguments only address the FCC as the agency of said legislation. There are several flaws with Opposition’s argumentation here. First, Opposition overlooks the fact that ALL current network neutrality legislation would employ the FCC as the enforcer. Opposition’s sole example of legislation which does not require the FCC as enforcer is “for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner.” This, again, uses the FCC as enforcer; unless Opposition can produce an example to the contrary, this argument is irrelevant. My primary issue with this statement is that Opposition suggests that the FCC is not currently tasked with operating in a “highly transparent and democratic manner.” They absolutely are! Yet we constantly see with government a gap between what they are obligated to do, and what they do in reality. Unless Opposition presents examples of specific legislation spelling out exactly how such transparency is achieved and grants solvency, this is simply a hypothetical solution. Further, Opposition’s argument that a strong incentive to reinstate the fairness doctrine would be irrelevant in a ‘highly transparent’ organization is also making broad assumptions about the commission. Regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of ‘fair’ still does not line up with ours, and their ideology will continue to influence their decisions regardless of whether we achieve the ‘transparency’ Opposition argues for.-I believe Opposition’s objections to the use of China as an example are unfounded for several reasons. First, Opposition argues that this is a slippery slope, that the US could never mirror China for internet censorship. Note that this was not the intent of my point; the use of China as an example is to show the similarities between censorship in China and what would be achieved by net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon states “The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar” in reference to SOPA and net neutrality [1]. Judging by the historical implications of the FCC I introduced in my last round, it is not unreasonable to suggest this as a possibility we should at the very least be wary of; as such, I reject Opposition’s argument of ‘slippery slope,’ for the reason that there is a very clear. Opposition then states “infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries.” It is this type of unguarded stance that allows our rights to become infringed upon. Regardless of socio-political differences between America and China, the characteristics inherent to human nature which cause the desire to influence the opinions of others in favor of self are clearly existent in both nations. Then of course there’s the fact that the FCC has already infringed upon our freedom of speech, something Opposition has yet to attempt to contradict.-A crux issue in this debate is the question of whether or not ISPs have the right to block out specific content, ie. decide what they make available to clients. I have already made it clear that I support this right for ISPs. Opposition has argued that this result in legitimate content being blocked from users; so what? ISPs as providers of a service should be able to decide exactly what their service entails. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I do agree that ISPs should be open with consumers about what they have access to-I simply believe they are within their rights to block sites if they wish. Secondly, even should each point in support of ISPs having this right be rejected, Opposition is still required to suggest reasons they should not have this right in order to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden Opposition has not upheld. I strongly urge Opposition to present reasons why this is outside the right of ISPs, as the only argument presented thus far is that it isn’t best for the consumer-this is why consumers change ISPs. This is where the free market comes in; if one company doesn’t satisfy the consumer, the market provides a new option to make a profit through satisfying this new market of consumers. -I apologize for omitting this from my first response, but I concede Opposition’s point that I never explicitly stated that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet. To clarify, my stance is that an open internet is more desirable, and further hold to my contention that net neutrality legislation will result in a net decrease in the openness of the internet. Opposition argues that allowing ISPs to restrict content access would result in a closed internet; I assert that this regardless is a net increase in the internet’s openness. First, with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options to emerge for consumers, the internet remains open, in contrast to net neutrality which introduces the FCC as presider over the internet, a clear introduction to a closed internet. Thus, net neutrality will result in a net reduction of internet openness, regardless of slight restriction by ISPs. We are, essentially, choosing the greater evil, which is government censorship/control of the internet. -I would also like to point out that net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members, as opposed to numerous ISPs and their corporation structures. I personally would choose option B any day. At a certain point, there is always someone choosing what is available to us for viewing; opting against net neutrality dilutes this into many, many more hands than the government, which is certainly preferable for the pursuit of freedom of speech and internet content availability.-For innovation: let me rephrase. These are different and are considered different by ISPs because they use differing amounts of bandwidth. Stipulating disconnects between descriptive and normative statements will not eliminate the technological differences between each of these; Opposition is essentially avoiding the recognition that there is a reason for ISPs to regard each uniquely. Just as we place prices on items in stores based off of the cost of production, ISPs place costs on types of data because of cost to supply it.-With regards to regulations in Europe: There most certainly are net neutrality regulations in place in Europe [3,4,5]. Further, by regulations in Europe, I am referring additionally to the European regulation framework that establishes public broadband as a public utility; the service-based competition system established by law has resulted in a system where no new investment or infrastructure is introduced into the system, causing a net loss in innovation. Broadband investment per household in the US is twice that in Europe; coverage is better; and basic broadband is cheaper in the US than in Europe [8,9]. The discrepancy between your statistics and mine can be found in the fact that the cost comparison of broadband in Europe is strictly for broadband, not a bundle of broadband, TV, and phone, which appears to be the focus of your cited statistics. France is the sole exception here; France actually has exceptional broadband services nd prices relative to the rest of Europe.Householda) ISPs may adopt any model of pricing they decide upon; they are independent businesses supplying a service to a consumer. I would contend that net benefits would be achieved in rejecting net neutrality, which I feel I have made sufficiently clear.b) My claims have been justified; the sources included in my last argument confirm this. Further, Opposition is being selective in quoting my arguments. I concede that both allow for lessening of congestion; I also state “A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.” Thus I hold net benefits here stronger than Opposition’s case does.-I feel I have sufficiently responded to each argument presented by the Opposition. However, I also feel the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win. Based off of the resolution, Opposition is tasked with arguing in favor of net neutrality; Opposition has failed to present any substantial arguments in favor of network neutrality, including why ISPs should not be able to engage in independent business models. Net benefits requires Opposition to create a clear image of how net neutrality is beneficial, not simply to attack the status quo. Should we not see this stance develop, it is impossible to assign net benefits to Opposition.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] https://gigaom.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.bbc.com... [8] http://www.nationalreview.com...[9] http://www.heritage.org...\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\nBut with that said, let’s get down to business. In this Final Round, I will provide a final criticism of Pro’s arguments, helping to tie up some loose ends along the way, and also clarify a variety of points that I have made. In addition, I will also use this round to attempt to convince readers that they should vote for Con, rather than Pro. The FCCPro focusses a significant amount of his final round to focus on the FCC, and makes a variety of criticisms, many surrounding on the on the concepts of “principle” and “concept. ” Thus, it is important to clarify what exactly is a principle, or a concept. The Oxford English Dictionary (Kindle Edition) defines principle as:“A general idea of plan, although the details are not yet established. ”Also by the OED, concept is defined as: “An abstract idea”However, Pro argues that we should focus on current net neutrality proposals because “debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. ” But, given the definitions of “principle” and “concept” this is clearly absurd. As per the definition of principle, we are considering net neutrality in general, and considering it as if “the details are not established. ” As per the definition of concept, we are to focus on net neutrality as “an abstract idea”. Therefore, Pro’s rebuttal bears little relevance; by attempting to focus this debate on current net neutrality legislation, regardless of its immediate relevance, he is destroying the whole purpose of debating a principle, or concept. Previously, I gave an example of a scenario where Pro’s arguments that the FCC has no interest in representing freedom of speech are nullified – where the FCC regulates ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. Pro critiques this by questioning the possibility of the FCC acting in a “highly transparent and democratic manner” and argues that this is an “unachieved goal for decades” and that the whole point of government is “built around the concept of being transparent and democratic. ” This rebuttal misses the point of my hypothetical scenario. The feasibility of this scenario bears little relevance because the whole point of this hypothetical scenario is to be far-fetched, because in doing so, it shows that Pro’s freedom of speech argument does not apply in all scenarios, and thus, we can’t reject net neutrality as a principle, or concept – merely recent forms of its legislation. One final argument relevant to the FCC that Pro makes against my argument that TVs and radios can’t be compared with the Internet, because of the way information is transferred in each medium. Pro responds by citing Section 706 and Title II. But this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument was not to do with how the FCC oversees the various mediums, but how they act in regulating information. In addition, Pro has not elaborated at all on how net neutrality fails to take into consideration differences between such mediums, and how I have undermined my own case. ChinaBy the end of the debate, Pro concedes that he was only making a comparison. In contrast, at the beginning of the debate, he was adamant about the possibility of the US’s internet being similar to China’s, even invoking Negri’s statement that “Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day. ” Pro is correct in saying that we should note similarities between the two, and the outcomes of various policies in other countries. But it we only do this, then that leaves Pro with no real argument to enforce, and he does not sufficiently clarify his position on this issue, especially considering his change of view since Round 2. If he is still arguing that net neutrality would lead to Internet with similarities to that seen in China, then it still is a slippery slope. If he is arguing that we merely should be cautious, and take this into consideration, then there is no rationale for rejecting net neutrality; we could still accept it, but just be cautious. ISPsIt is important to note that a essentially of this section (as left by Pro in his final round) is based on the assumption that the FCC is against freedom of speech, and would set limits on what one would do on the Internet. This is an assumption that has been debated throughout this debate, but falls short of establishing that a net benefit would be reached without net neutrality. This is because – as I have argued for many times in this debate - it takes a narrow scope, rather than a broad scope regarding net neutrality – it is focussing on specific forms of net neutrality legislation, rather than net neutrality as a principle, or a concept. Once again, Pro has failed to show how the descriptive statement to the normative statement. He merely complains that my attempts to “philosophically analyse this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue. ” However, firstly, as Pro himself notes, I have conceded that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. However, it is completely false to say that I am “looking for a debate on economics” as Pro claims. It is also untrue that the real issue is “that content is priced differently as a result of product cost differential”. As a matter of fact, I argue that the real issue is to do with moral philosophy. This is because Pro is arguing that ISPs ought to be charging differently based on the type of content. Naturally, this leads into the realm of moral philosophy, because such a realm deals with what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be done, what ought not to be done; the normative aspects. Of course, positive economics is relevant to some extent. However, in this case, it is concerning the descriptive aspect of content, but not what ought to happen; the normative aspect. Pro hasn’t really addressed this problem; instead, he keeps trying to push us back to a debate on the descriptive statement. Pro appeals to the fact that prices should be varying because to make a profit because “it is common business practice”. However, this doesn’t lead logically to the conclusion that the prices should be varying. Simply because something is common business practice does not mean that this is right, or should be allowed in policy. Consequently, we have seen no compelling reason that ISPs should be pricing content differently, as per their bandwidth needs. We have merely seen that different content have different bandwidth needs. InnovationOne thing to note is that Pro has completely dropped his argument that there is empirical evidence showing that regulation of telecommunications companies in Europe leads to less innovation, and has negative effects, such as limiting consumer access to the Internet. Previously, I argued that this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence he has provided, because it does not show a causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, I provided a study by Chang et. al which shows that net neutrality has the opposite effect on innovation as Pro claims; it is actually beneficial in regard to innovation (especially infrastructure), rather than detrimental. Pro has not attempted to refute this evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no good reasons to believe that innovation will be negatively affected by net neutrality, only positively affected. HouseholdPro appears to concede that an ISP’s pricing plan as advocated by him is also dependant on the ISP’s actions. However, he still argues that network congestion is more likely to be solved without net neutrality than with net neutrality. His argument relies on the premise that “with net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems. ” Firstly, this is completely unjustified. It is also clearly false. In the previous round, I brought up McKay’s observation that network congestion is also due to the ISP’s method of data transmission between different servers. We can extend this to show that with net neutrality, ISPs have an incentive to upgrade this servers. This stems from the fact that because ISPs are not able to introduce their pricing schemes, they must find different ways to deal with net congestion, such as upgrading their systems. Conversely, if net neutrality was not introduced, and ISPs were to introduce a pricing scheme as advocated by Pro, they would have no incentive in upgrading their systems, because the problem is already solved. Thus, Pro’s logic falls back on him. ConclusionThis debate took an interesting direction (largely because I misread Pro’s Round 1 and thought that he had the sole BOP for a while), but nevertheless, as we are at the end of the debate, I contend that there are good reasons why the audience should vote Con. (1) Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof, because all of his arguments fail in one way or another. There are no successful arguments against net neutrality offered by Pro. (2) I have shown that by refuting Pro’s arguments against net neutrality, I am implicitly making a case for net neutrality, due to the way Pro presents his case. This remained undisputed by Pro by the end of the debate. (3) Pro has dropped many of his core arguments. For instance, his argument about Europe’s internet, and his argument that a rejection of net neutrality fuels competition (note that he never addressed this, after I called out his bare assertion in Round 2. ) (4) I have made positive arguments that have been unrefuted and untouched by Pro. For instance, net neutrality is beneficial towards innovation (from Cheng et. al) and that net neutrality helps dissipate monopolies and duopolies (Round 2). The resolution has been negated.\",\n \"ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality\\nTaking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\nI shall do this by refuting all his contentions, and in doing so, show that there are no exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. Pro essentially argues that the USFG should reject net neutrality because “net neutrality does not, [in fact], result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. ” Note that in order for him to use this kind of reasoning and reach the position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, he needs to make the assumption that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, which he has not done. Personally, I do believe that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, so I’m on his side on this, but I reject all contentions that he makes in attempting to show that net neutrality takes steps towards a closed internet. Let’s see his contentions. Freedom of Speech Pro argues that enforcement of net neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. According to him, “anyone claiming that new network neutrality regulations through the FCC will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying, or deluded. ” Given that he has made a very strong claim, one would expect him to give solid reasons, or evidence, in support of his claim. Unfortunately, he has not done so. Essentially, his argument amounts to that the FCC doesn’t support freedom of speech - as a matter of fact, it is against freedom of speech - and consequently, enforcement of net neutrality laws would, by giving the government more control of the Internet, thus stifling freedom of speech. Such an argument is problematic in several ways:(a) Regarding his claim that the FCC is not supportive, and never will be supportive of freedom of speech, he gives no reasoning or evidence whatsoever. Essentially, his argument amounts to a bare-assertion fallacy. (b) Enforcement of net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet. This is because the FCC does not seek to regulate the Internet, instead, it is regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services. Perhaps in anticipation of (b), Pro creates a slippery slope argument. He observes that the Chinese government strongly regulates telecommunication industries in China, thus promoting censorship and the rejection of freedom of speech. Thus, Pro argues, net neutrality regulation may be the first step further governmental control and restriction over the Internet. There are multiple things wrong with this argument:(a) Slippery slope arguments “[avoid] engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. ” Thus, they are fallacious (1)(b)There is a big difference between the way regulation of telecommunication industries as advocated by the supporter of net neutrality in the US and the way telecommunication industries are regulated in China. In China, actual website content is blocked, while enforcement of net neutrality laws only lead to the regulation of how the telecommunication industry can transfer information on the Internet. Thus, Pro needs to give reasons to how net neutrality regulation would lead to the type of censorship observed in China. (c) China and the U. S cannot be compared, because of the different socio-political situations between the two countries. For one, the Chinese government has a strong incentive/motive in committing acts of internet censorship and restricting freedom of speech - eg. to silence dissent and preserve the political system present in China by restricting knowledge of other political systems - while the U. S government does not. Second, the U. S is far more democratic than China - it’s citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy, for an example of Internet policy, look at SOPA. Thus, we should be skeptical over his claims that net neutrality would eventually lead to a closed internet in this sense. Net Neutrality and Competition Pro argues that Comcast’s blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified, and that “arguing this [Comcast’s actions] as a supporting factor of net neutrality is ludicrous. ”(a) Adherents of net neutrality do not use Comcast’s actions as a reason for promoting net neutrality. Rather, they use this as an example to illustrate the fact that ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet, thus acting as a reason against Pro’s position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, rather than a positive reason for net neutrality. (b) Pro cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast was blocking torrent sites housing pirated content. Rather, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, as his source indicates. (2) It is important to note that BitTorrent is not solely used for pirating content - there plenty of legitimate uses such as legally downloading game updates, and the Internet Archive - because BitTorrent is merely a means to spread information. (3) Thus, blocking BitTorrent traffic would also infringe upon legal uses of the technology. (c) Pro has not shown that it is the “prerogative” of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Indeed, it could be argued that the sole purpose of ISPs is to provide Internet access, and thus they should not be controlling what their clients are doing on the Internet, because it is out of their bounds. Pro also provides several reasons why rejecting net-neutrality laws do not promote monopolies. For instance, he argues that net neutrality will not end monopolies, instead it makes it harder to end monopolies. (a) Advocates of net neutrality do not argue that net neutrality regulation will end monopolies; instead they are arguing that rejection of net neutrality will promote the development of monopolies/duopolies etc, or that net neutrality regulation will make it easier to end monopolies/duopolies etc. Thus, Pro’s statement is non-topical. (b) Essentially all of this segment regarding competition is pure assertion. Pro has not justified any of the claims he makes here, and thus on this basis alone, all of his claims should be discounted until he provides justification. Innovation (a) Pro claims that Internet content such as “an online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book” should not be treated equally, because they are not equal in importance. But the importance of such content is not intrinsic, but relative to different people. Thus, the question of whose perspective discerns the importance of online content is raised. (b) Pro argues that because the various content on the Internet are different, they ought to be treated differently. However, he makes the jump from a descriptive statement (various content on the Internet are different) to a normative statement (they ought to be treated differently) arbitrarily, and does not show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. Pro uses an analogy of a household in order to illustrate why rejecting net neutrality would be beneficial, and extends this logic towards an entire community. Fundamentally, this is a question of how to deal with network congestion, and Pro argues that rejecting net neutrality would help solve this problem. However: (a) In the case that net neutrality is rejected, and ISPs are able to deal with network congestion through allowing in variation of pricing Internet access according to how one uses the Internet, Pro does not elaborate on which method ISPs are to do this. Do customers sign up to an Internet package which is optimised for what they are to do with the Internet (eg. a package optimised for watching Netflix)? Do customers sign up to a rather blank Internet package, and the pricing is determined later on how customers use their Internet? Both are in my view, problematic, and I would like Pro to elaborate on the specific details of his view. (b) The fact that the two people in the household are unable to complete simple activities on the Internet such as Google searches (this also applies when Pro’s argument is extended to the community) does not mean that net neutrality should be rejected. S. Derek Turner notes that net neutrality regulation as pushed for still “leave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management methods. ” (4) Thus, the benefit of being able to address network congestion effectively as argued by proponents of net neutrality rejection is not exclusive to their position, and net neutrality still allows room to fix these problems. Pro claims that “similar regulations are place in Europe”. However, what regulations are he talking about? Net neutrality regulations? His Source 4 states that there are no established net neutrality regulations in the European Union. So where in Europe is he talking about? Regardless of this, it is a factual mistake to claim that “broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US”, when in reality, broadband service is actually much more expensive in the U. S when compared to many areas in Europe (3 times more expensive than in the U. K and France) (5) Conclusion In this round, I have refuted the core of Pro’s arguments, showing that none of his 3 main contentions stand up to scrutiny, and as a result, show that there are no benefits (exclusive) in rejecting net neutrality. Thus, Pro has not affirmed his burden of proof, and the resolution is negated. Sources (1) . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2) . https://torrentfreak.com...(3) . http://www.makeuseof.com...(4) . http://www.freepress.net...(5) . http://www.bbc.com...\",\n \"Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed\\nRecently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a \\\"new technology or business model\\\" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to \\\"partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies\\\" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this \\\"monopoly\\\" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a \\\"regulatory regime\\\". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs \\\"pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others\\\" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: \\\"Among our nation\\\"s 12 largest internet service providers,\\\" he told the audience, \\\"domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.\\\" I ask him to elaborate. \\\"As I\\\"ve seen it and heard it,\\\" he says, \\\"Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that \\\"even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.\\\" \\\" By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren\\\"t sticking it to the man. We aren\\\"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from \\\"Banksy\\\" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search \\\"If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality\\\". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn\\\"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: \\\"The European Union\\\"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply.\\\" In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will \\\"throttle\\\" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don\\\"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to \\\"throttle\\\" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were \\\"pilloried in the court of public opinion\\\" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...\",\n \"Network neutrality\\nNet neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\nNetwork Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP’s (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn’t be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like “equal treatment” and “ending discrimination in transmitting content,” all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn’t accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to ‘end discrimination in transmitting content?’ Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let’s say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let’s expand this example to an entire community. ISP’s being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn’t because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it ‘protects freedom of speech’ through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn’t caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP’s to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don’t have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the ‘freedom of speech’ claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn’t exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn’t want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China’s strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen’s Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that “under the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day” [5]. Don’t misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast’s blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP’s to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP’s to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP’s pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn’t. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor’s content or specific sites it doesn’t want to give access to. In fact, it’s good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP’s actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn’t infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don’t have, they aren’t paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com...\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.\\n-My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as “a general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.” Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that “it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer,” an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition’s only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which “requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner,” with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the “highly transparent and democratic manner” bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition’s solution for corruption and the FCC’s blatant censorship is to make them “highly transparent and democratic,” yet doesn’t have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a “highly democratic” onto a ‘highly transparent’ does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition’s arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition’s solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition’s interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that “Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those.” Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that “there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content” directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition’s attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn’t change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition’s case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition’s exclusion of current legislation is the FCC’s history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition’s only proposed argument against the right of ISP’s to price their services freely is that “they can’t be trusted to govern the internet” and “it would hurt the consumer.” As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition’s attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld.\",\n \"The US shouldn't require net neutrality.\\nTim Wu, the guy who coined the term \\\"net neutrality,\\\" notes the importance of \\\"differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law.\\\" This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says \\\"net neutrality stimulates competition\\\" because, \\\"if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing.\\\" First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that \\\"big companies would be unable to compete with each other\\\" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says \\\"if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see.\\\" As a result, Con argues, \\\"small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground.\\\" First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be \\\"banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground\\\" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says \\\"if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds.\\\" Again, those \\\"fast speeds\\\" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the \\\"power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers.\\\" But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment that \\\"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\\\" [6] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.\",\n \"Net neutrality\\nOk For the last time I never said Net Neutrality. (which I'm now just going to say NN for) has been a law. I said I was a founding principle of the internet. If in your last round you claim I said it was a law you're either intentionally using a straw man or your an idiot. Then you say ebay and amazon couldn't pay to have other online shopping sites block because of anti-trust laws. Also in your final paragraph you say I never addressed you anti-trust argument. Yes I did earlier I just got tired of doing it every round. I will say it again. Anti-trust laws don't work because regulation of ISP's are horrible. Then you say that FCC guy wasn't payed by ISP's and even if he does it doesn't matter. 1. Yes he was funded by version 2. You would trust people who are getting payed by people to talk their side. So if Bud light payed a scientist to say you should drink 10,000 of these every year because it's super good for you you would trust him? If you say no same principle applies here. And I already addressed you're final paragraph. Like I said either way NN passed the FCC. I'm happy about it. The internet will continue to be a awesome place. One more thing. You mentioned government regulation like it should never exist. However in some situations it should be there. You're for affirmative action on your big issues page. Government regulation. Am I saying NN is as important as minorities having equal rights, no. However in some situations government should have regulations.\",\n \"Network neutrality\\nSome data should be allowed to move faster\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Some data should be allowed to move faster \"EDITORIAL: Net neutrality. Another solution in search of a problem.\" Las Vegas Review-Journal. March 18th, 2010: \"A market exists to charge a premium to guarantee the immediate delivery of huge volumes of content and information -- think videoconferencing and big data downloads and transfers -- so why shouldn't a business be free to enter it? Especially if it keeps costs down for smaller customers?\"","Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea Rules: No ad hominem fallacy Keep the debate civil Definitions: Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.","The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as \"packets,\" comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like \"15Mbps plan\", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality.","Net neutrality. Do you have any non partisan evidence contradicting net neutrality? Do you know what it even measns?","net neutrality legislation Risk of a two-tier Internet","Net neutrality I believe in net neutrality but I don't when reading your response I noticed that you only thought about \"providing your son that yacht he always wanted,\" and \"WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE POWER,\" and what I want to say is that net neutrality is NOT about providing people like you with more power and your son with a yacht it is about how the Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, etc. So again net neutrality isn't just about you and what you want it is about what is best for everyone. I believe if everyone is provided with an equal kind of Internet than the world will have less people like you.","Net neutrality laws. I'll keep this short. If we don't have net neutrality companies can block or slow down websites if they don't pay a bribe. It would kill start up companies and not make the internet the fair platform it is. Companies could kill there competitors and kill competition. Also you fail at making debates impossible to accept.","net neutrality Well, that's unfortunate. ISP's should be able to control network speed and charge accordingly. The bandwidth on the ISP's networks is limited. The only way to control access to a limited resource and balance supply and demand is to allow for the formation of free market prices. Our internet networks are a bit like the highways we drive on. The reason that some roads are extremely over-used and others are only lightly used is that the government controls the funding and construction of roads. They're a \"pulblic\" resource.","Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies \"Consumers Deserve Protection\". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: \"In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality – so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn’t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet.\"","Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. 1) The government is allowed to regulate certain products, even if a company creates them. Government regulation of business is a way to ensure that consumers are protected, and companies should not be given complete free rein over their products - there are always rules and regulations. 2) Internet providers created the ability to access the Internet, but not the content on the Internet itself. There is no reason that these large companies should be given the power to dictate who can access what content.","Markets force network owners to play fair and neutral \"EDITORIAL: Net neutrality. Another solution in search of a problem.\" March 18th, 2010. Las Vegas Review-Journal: \"Internet service providers know their customers are a fickle lot. After all, consumers have lots of choices. If a company decides to sign on more subscribers than its network can accommodate without making corresponding investments in capacity, those subscribers won't stand for having their computers seize during routine browsing and searching. They'll jump ship. Companies have no incentive to hurt one group of paying customers in favor of another.\"","Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Many net neutrality activists would have you believe the internet is a green pasture of freedom in which information disseminates freely. This is not exactly true. Like Cerf said, innovation is welcome at any and all levels of the internet, and yet, in recent years, it has become dominated by single oligarchic rulers. Google is the main search engine, YouTube is the main video hosting platform, Amazon is the main retailer, Netflix is the main film and television hosting site. The list goes on. For almost any information or service you could want from the internet, one company usually dominates the field.","Net neutrality To conclude, I'll do a short rebuttal, and then I'll do a recap of the whole debate. == Rebuttal == (1) Pro says that net neutrality was a \"founding principle\" of the Internet. First, Pro's simply wrong: \"net neutrality\" is a recent phrase, coined by Tim Wu in 2003. [1] Second, Pro offers no source for his claim, so it's unreliable (and again, wrong). Third, even if Pro's right that net neutrality is a \"founding principle,\" that's irrelevant to this debate. The issue we're debating is whether to require net neutrality, or whether to allow entrepreneurs to experiment (e.g. Lariat Wireless, discussed in Round 2 and dropped by Pro). (2) Pro says antitrust laws \"don't work because regulation of ISPs are horrible.\" But that makes no sense. Regulations aren't relevant to how the antitrust laws work. Antitrust laws apply in the absence of regulations. Antitrust laws prevent Amazon from blocking other online sites because the antitrust laws explicitly prohibit the \"attempt to monopolize\" and the \"abuse of monopoly power.\" There's no other way to characterize \"paying to block your competitors\" than an \"abuse of monopoly power\" or an \"attempt to monopolize.\" Both are illegal under our antitrust laws. (3) Pro continues to assert that the \"FCC guy\" was \"funded by version,\" but he provides no source for that claim. There's no reason to think FCC commissioners are funded by ISPs. (4) Pro says the FCC passed net neutrality rules. Yes, that's true. But that's also completely irrelevant to the debate, which is about whether there should be net neutrality laws, not whether there exist any net neutrality laws. And if the debate's about whether there exists net neutrality laws, then Pro still loses because the FCC rules haven't gone into effect yet, they're being challenged in the courts (and the last couple net neutrality rules the FCC approved were struck down by courts), and a change in administration could reverse the FCC's rule. (5) I agree with Pro that government should regulate some things, including some aspects of telecommunications. But there's no need to regulate net neutrality. == Recap == The argument against net neutrality is simple: net neutrality doesn't distinguish procompetitive discrimination from anticompetitive discrimination. Pro never challenged that argument. Instead, he claims that net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent anticompetitive discrimination. But as I explained throughout the debate, that's simply untrue. Our antitrust laws -- which have developed over the past 100 years -- are enough to protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination. The antitrust laws also allow entrepreneurs like Lariat Wireless (see Round 2) to experiment with procompetitive forms of data discrimination. The idea is to cater to the consumer, and in doing so, lower prices. The net result is that more people can get online than if we had a rigid net neutrality law, because prices are lower. It also leads to creative business models, which spurts growth and innovation. Pro never contests the substance of my argument. His only points throughout the debate focus on showing that ISPs can harm consumers and competition in the absence of net neutrality. But Pro offered no sourcing for any of his claims, even though I asked multiple times. The reason is because most of his claims aren't true. Moreover, I showed throughout the debate that Pro's wrong, because the antitrust laws already -- and the keyword there is \"already\" -- stop ISPs from harming consumers and competition. Pro never argues otherwise. Thus, there's simply no reason to displace our antitrust laws, which are flexible and fact-based, with a rigid net neutrality law that doesn't distinguish the procompetitive from the anticompetitive.","Network neutrality Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet:","Net Neutrality Thanks Tyler, here we go.Main Contention- Resource PrioritizationNet Neutrality advocates proffers a case that of non-discriminatory. This is a major flaw when it comes to resource prioritization. Large companies such as netflix requires huge amounts of data, while users such as ourselves require very little. The complexity of technology leads to a path of optimisation. Resource optimisation is key in technological advancements. Thus, Each user should be optimised to its own needs.RebuttalsTyler, the success of newer start-ups, again is correlating with resource prioritisations. Newer starters rarely need any additional incentives, they usually arrive with whatever they need. Furthermore, the resources that they need are nothing compare to the power core companies. This is just a matter of prioritising and optimising everyone to suit everyone needs. Nothing more, Nothing less.As far as I'm concerned, there is no violation of the first amendment. The right to free speech is still upheld, unless Tyler wishes to go to specifics. Thanks Tyler, I hand it back to you.","Net neutrality Pro seems to think we've had net neutrality for years. But that is simply untrue. The entire controversy surrounding net neutrality concerns proposed laws, not laws that already exist. [4] Unless Pro can cite a single net neutrality law that's existed for years, his entire argument falls apart. The reality is that we've never had net neutrality and the Internet has not only been fun but grown at an incredible pace. As PayPal founder Peter Thiel notes, \"[n]et neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don\"t see any reason why it\"s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past.\" [5] -- Pro says \"in many places you only have one [ISP] option.\" That's true, but the big companies aren't to blame. Local governments are the problem. \"Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned 'rights of way' so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need 'pole attachment' contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.\" [6] The result: \"Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost.\" [6] ISPs try to enter new areas all the time. The problem is that entry costs -- not the laying wires part but the costs of negotiating with local governments -- are extremely high. That's something neither net neutrality nor antitrust laws will change. The irony of Pro's position is that it asks for MORE government regulation when government is ALREADY the biggest obstacle preventing competition among ISPs. The solution is getting local governments to allow the free market to do its thing. That's how you get more competition among ISPs, which in turn lowers prices. -- Pro claims that \"people do nothing because they are bought off\" and \"there are many loopholes.\" But that's also not true. Pro gives no source for his claims because the claims are bunk. ISPs aren't bribing anyone. I'm not even sure who they'd bribe, but note that the only way bribes work is under a regulatory scheme, which is what Pro supports. I'm the one arguing that we let the free market do its thing, which means bribes wouldn't help anyone. As for loopholes, again I have no idea what Pro's talking about. If by loopholes, Pro's referring to the antitrust laws, there aren't really any loopholes in the law. You either show harm to consumers or competition, or you don't show harm to consumers or competition. It's economics all the way down. If you show harm, it's illegal. That's how the laws work. So if an ISP has a monopoly on providing broadband, and it charges monopoly prices for \"fast-lanes,\" they'd be found liable and/or guilty under current antitrust laws. There's no need to build a rigid regulatory scheme on top of that. -- No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a \"fast lane\" mail service is \"unfair,\" \"undemocratic,\" or \"bad for the economy.\" Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. ATT has even said that under a net neutrality regime, they'd have no incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure. The reality is that net neutrality chokes broadband competition, because it prevents experimentation in business models and pricing. We don't need net neutrality because the antitrust laws already protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Broadband providers can't do anything that would hurt consumers or competition. If they do, it means they have monopoly power (because you can't impose monopoly prices without monopoly power, as consumers would just buy your service from your competitors). And if they have monopoly power and abuse that power (by extracting monopoly rents), they're already doing something illegal under current antitrust laws. Which is why FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has said that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don\"t like are non-existent: \"The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it\"s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy.\" [7] ISPs don't slow the Internet down in a free market; they compete with each other, which creates incentives to speed the Internet up. Net neutrality would choke that competition. [4] http://money.cnn.com... [5] http://www.nationalreview.com... [6] http://www.wired.com... [7] http://www.fcc.gov...","Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet \"Net Neutrality is Simple, Conservative Consumer Protection.\" Public Knowledge on Opposing Views.com: Net Neutrality \"is not regulating the Internet. It is regulating the companies which provide access to the Internet – a traditional function that the FCC has largely abandoned to the detriment of the country.\"","Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting \"network testing\" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit \"reasonable network management practices\" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.","The US shouldn't require net neutrality. I accept the Con side of the debate that the U.S. shouldn't require net neutrality. I am looking forward to Pro posting their first arguments.","Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem Arpan Sura. \"The Problem With Network Neutrality.\" FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: \"Solution in Search of a Problem. Currently there are no principles of network neutrality encoded into law. So ISPs are already free to block or favor content as they please. It is telling that none of them has. In fact, no proponent of network neutrality can cite an existing problem to which network neutrality is a solution.\"","Should The US Keep Net Neutrality So you make some really interesting points. I'm just gonna refute what you said in each paragraph separately. Paragraph #1: So you used an example of, \"paying more for water.\" But here is the thing. It really isn't that. A common misconception is that the price of basic internet will be raised. No. Everyone will have internet at the same price as it was during Net Neutrality, but you can pay for faster internet if you want it, similar to if you want to upgrade your hotel room. You can upgrade if you have the money, but if you don't have the money, it doesn't mean that you don't have a good hotel room. You still do! So it beneficial to people who have a few extra dollars. Paragraph #2: So you said that it would be hard to make businesses it completely backwards. As I said in my second point, \"Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation,\" FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumers benefit. According to Economic Analyst Ainsley Miller, \"a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content for everyone.\" Paragraph #3 and 4: You were talking about a violation of free speech, but according to Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \"slow service,\" or being, \"anti-free speech,\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. So, here is what I just said hopefully simplified. If the Internet Service Provider slows down certain websites, the ISPs will actually lose money because they don't want to be thought of as 'anti-free speech.' And if they are, then people will move to a new ISP. So it is actually in the best interest of the ISPs to not slow down content. Instead, they can slow down bad things, like scams, hackers, and things that people don't want to see online. They won't push their personal agenda because then they will lose money, something that they don't want to do. Thank you!","net neutrality I accept.I will provide one clarification and then post my first arguments and rebuttals in round 2.Net neutrality: this is the idea that ISP's (internet service providers) like Comcast should not give preferential treatment to any specific traffic on their network.","The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Before I move onto refutations, I'd like to draw attention to the style the negations last argument adopted. Small chunks of arguments were taken, out of context of the larger argument. Those arguments were then either weakly refuted, called irrelevant despite it being brought up by the negation and being quite central to the resolution, or had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument. And don't forget the latin and logical fallacies. This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart. So first, let me restate the definition of net neutrality, as given three lines into the debate. Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. Net neutrality is not access rates, it is not an \"explicit price control mechanism\", it is about how packets are treated and delivered. The neg decided to refute almost all of my points with a variation of the same argument, that being that traffic is sent over private property and thus should be allowed to be manipulated and used however the ISP wants. In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument. To list those arguments opposed morally, thus granted technically. -The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved -ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises -Control of the Internet will be in the hands of a handful of large companies that control the Backbone Network. \"It ignores the nature of what the Internet is\" The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information. To grant control of that system to those few companies, you must ignore the nature of what the Internet is. \"It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base\" *This* is a contractual issue, when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on, that being the access rate these torrenters use, the fault does not lie with those who use their package, it lies with Comcast. \"Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality.\" Again, I point to the definition of net neutrality, and this arguments nature as a contractual issue. Net neutrality is about how packets are treated and sent. If ISPs oversell their product, it is their responsibility to either handle the packages they sold, or re design those packages. \"dumb internet\" This is refuted by the private property argument, addressed lower down. \"Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user.\" The ability for customization by the end user is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs. This is part of the end-to-end design, and is used to show that traffic shaping isn't needed. \"\"entrepreneurial nature of the internet\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, \" This is the motivation of companies to side with multi-billion dollar companies over garage companies yet again. It is in the ISPs obvious benefit to side with google over that kid with an old lunix computer running a search engine to get some ad revenue. \"I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source.\" You ignored the giant pipeline that most internet traffic will eventually flow through (see http://en.wikipedia.org...) \"Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates?\" Multi-billion dollar company = more profit The private property, and reduced income argument. Our governments responsibility is to protect its citizens. Part of this is to ensure that they are not exploited at the expense of profit. Take Goldman Sachs for example, we defiantly reduced their ability to profit by adding regulation, and preventing more of the trading that cause the economic downfall, but we did this because they were taking advantage of the consumer to make that profit. In the same vein we must protect the Internet from being exploited at the cost of the consumer in the name of profit. We are still buying that package from the ISP, and to say that ISPs are allowed to invade upon the property we have purchased in the form of data transmission, much less in the name of private property, is ridiculous. especially when this access rate argument can be negated by buying high access rate packages. Gah procrastination, 20 seconds remaining!","Net Neutrality My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.","The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered \"no\" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor\"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn\"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don\"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers\" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs\", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org...","Internet has been successful w/o govt regs like net neutrality Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said in a February 2006 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Net Neutrality: \"I would like to focus this morning on three main points. First, Congress's policy of leaving the Internet unregulated has been a resounding success. The resulting network flexibility has encouraged billions of dollars in investment. Companies that include high speed Internet services among their offerings have the freedom to experiment with multiple business models, producing more choices and competition in content and providers for consumers, and more innovation than ever before.\" Mr. McSlarrow's overarching argument is that laws like Net Neutrality would limit the innovative business and pricing models of Internet providers like Comcast.","Net neutrality. One thing I have noticed since net neutrality began in 2015 was that conservatives were ostracized in a lot of social media platforms, which is why they have turned to sights that they pay for where they are not interfered with at all. In a way net neutrality has opened it up for large social media sites were able to almost block conservative content without anyone having a say in it. Which is why they support it so much as well as why they show the negative to net neutrality so often. Finally, net neutrality just prevents companies from charging you for certain items like giving YouTube unlimited power to ISPs without having to pay.","Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Since the Progressive Era, the United States has not harbored a true capitalism. For some weird reason a laissez-faire market leads to massive wealth inequality, exploitation of lower class workers, and gives unbridled power to the super wealthy. While we haven't exactly succeeded in solving that problem, we have introduced regulations to help even the playing field and create conditions such that businesses of any size have an improved chance of getting off the ground. Internet business is no different. Before any website loomed large, it was just a small, struggling startup. Remove net neutrality, and you will remove the even playing field that allows new companies to get a foothold.","Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet In my second rebuttal, I will simply refute my opponents refutations of my arguments. I shall also point out that none of my responses have yet been responded to. Argument 1: Right to regulate. Op response: The government is not always good. Response 1: In the case of a real threat, not always good is better than definitively bad. Even if you accept my opponent's argument that the government is not always good, when choosing between definite bad and only sometimes bad, you are going to choose the government every time. The government needs to be able to regulate in the case of cyber terror. Response 2: As citizens of the United States, we are the ones electing who will make the decisions. For this reason, we must give trust to the government as we decide its contents. The government is built on a checks and balances design. If the executive branch acts based on the wrong reasons, the legislative branch, the people we actively elect, have the power to impeach. This means that we need to trust the government to do right. Argument 2: Econ. Op response: \"I don't think government regulation is required to make the internet free.\" Response 1: My opponent clearly lacks sources. This is not a debate of opinion; this is a debate of facts. My source clearly shows a need for government regulation for maintaining net neutrality. Response 2: Net neutrality isn't just about making the internet free: it's about making it so people with more money don't have visibility on the internet. This, in fact, cannot be achieved without government regulation as it would be the large companies such as Google making these decisions, companies that have invested interest in no net neutrality. Government regulation is important for maintaining net neutrality. Argument 3: Purpose of the internet. Op response 1: People should decide the importance of the internet Response: I agree. I happen to be a person, and I believe that that is what is important about the internet. Op response 2: Online business is important. Response: Net neutrality in no way harms online business. Net neutrality would only make more fair for the smaller online business with less money. I would agree that online shopping is beneficial, though regulation in no way prevents that. Argument 4: Privacy. Op response: We can't trust the government because it spies on people. Response 1: Go back to my second response concerning my first argument. As we are the ones electing these officials, we need to trust them in order for them to do their job. If they are spying, we must trust that it is for good reason. Response 2: This is similar to my first response concerning my first argument. The companies have real interest in breaching privacy via the internet, whereas the government does not. We need to trust this government because it can protect us against people that are actually trying to harm us, whether or not the government is perfect. Accordingly, I affirm.","The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Here is a bit from the main net neutrality supporting site, savetheinternet. com, under the FAQ section. Who wants to get rid of net neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Which means it isn't just Virgin Media that's heading into this. They're followed by many other companies as well. Now, I know you might think, \"Well, people can just switch to Embarq or one of the 'safe' IPs\" But that wouldn't work exactly as planned. Why wouldn't Embarq take that opportunity to raise their prices? No matter how you look at it, we have to pay more. I know that sounds a bit greedy, but in times like this, with our economy as unstable as it is, this simply cannot turn out well. Otherwise, my arguments on the unethical nature of net neutrality still stand. I can understand if you don't intend to disagree with them, as well. As the consumer, I can't begin to think of a scenario where getting rid of net neutrality would be beneficial. Either way, I had fun. And it looks net neutrality is winning. I hear action was recently taken against Comcast.","Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.","A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom. The Internet is founded upon principles of the free market - people are allowed to publish content and the content's success is based upon whether or not people like it. Instead of interfering with the free market, the government should allow businesses to direct themselves. Otherwise, the system veers dangerously towards socialism. [[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html]]","The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Net neutrality \"is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The first round is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.","The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html","allow internet service providers to block access to extremist websites ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality","Net Neutrality \"The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible.\" Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. \"a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web.\" Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is \"fairer\", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.","Net Neutrality How would we be better off without the internet. The internet is a great way for small or big businesses to gain publicity without any hard work. Without Net neutrality bigger businesses can just pay the ISPs to block the smaller businesses. So Net neutrality is just gonna slow down innovation.","Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs. By setting out clear rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior, ISPs will avoid getting into trouble like Comcast did when it blocked BitTorrent users in early 2010. This would help network owners avoid getting into trouble both with anti-competitive laws as well as their customers who get angry when they discover that the company crossed the line in blocking content, discriminating between content, or charged extra for data from one site versus another.","Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure: Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds. Because Network Neutrality blocks such a tiered system from emerging, many believe it prevents network owners from raising the revenue needed to make the investments that will build the robust Internet of the future.","Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners \"Protect Net neutrality.\" St. Petersburg Times Editorial. April 10, 2010: \"Without Net neutrality rules, the big telecommunications and cable providers could decide to start charging Web sites for faster delivery or prefer content providers associated with their own conglomerates. This would crush innovation and competition by giving the biggest companies the ability to nudge smaller start-ups out of view.\"","Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet: As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, \"The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.\"[2]","Network neutrality Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace","Net neutrality Internet neutrality is The principle that internet service providers and the government should treat all data on the website equally, with the exception of anything illegal like child porn. That means companies can't slow down a website like debate.org for any reason or favor one website over another. How ISPs would have you believe is that without this rule that they would speed up websites making them faster for everyone. However in practice how this works is that ISPs slow down everyone then demand that companies pay a bribe to make the internet go the same speed it used to. Let's take Hulu and Netflix. Without net neutrality GCI for example would slow them both down then demand they pay say One million dollars to be in the so called \"fast lane\" which is really what they had before. If Netflix payed the bribe and Hulu didn't they would slow Hulu and Netflix would have a unfair advantage. They could keep threatening Netflix and force them to pay more and more. It would also make it impossible for start up companies to go anywhere because they would be to slow because they can't pay the bribe so start up businesses couldn't be successful. For more info check out this video my CGP grey's video on the subject.","Internet providers have a right to control their networks \"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\" An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: \"What's at stake is who gets control, and who pays the cost. We believe businesses, yes even big corporations like AT&T, have a right to control what they own and to operate without financial penalty imposed by the government.\"","Net Neutrality Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away.","Net neutrality. Where is your rebuttal in that? We cannot have a debate when someone just throws an opinion out without any evidence, I just showed you how it is not fair and all you have is \"I am a moderate therefore net neutrality is fair.\" I do not know if you took the time to do some research but I am a moderate as well but I still believe it harms small business and conservatives, so please give me something to work off of next time.","Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Today, anyone can create a website for very little money and fill it with whatever they want. For a lucky few, their website provides information or services that the public generally likes. They share their website with friends and over social media, word catches on, they place some key advertisements with GoogleAds and elsewhere on the internet, they create some solid SEO content and, before long, they're rolling in internet gold and glory. Striking down net neutrality will cut the fanfare short. Writing to Congress in 2005, Vice President of Google and inventor of the Internet Protocol, Vint Cerf argued that: \"The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control … a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.\" This kind of freedom that the anti-net neutrality crowd is after has not existed in any industry in the U.S. since the Gilded Age, when the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan exercised monopolistic control over their respective industries to keep the playing field stacked in their favor. Mark Fiore describes this with a Dr. Seuss-esque cartoon.","net neutrality Net neutrality is very important for the nation, as it does not allow bigger companies like Google or ebay to make their network faster and slow down other smaller networks","The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAT THE INTERNET IS OUR LAST VESTAGE OF FREE SPEECH. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. NET NEUTRALITY IS. I believe that Net Neutrality should be spared, and should be kept away from Virgin Media's grubby, greedy hands. For those who don't know, I'll summarize net neutrality in a simple way. Net neutrality is what lets you sit at your computer, hop on the internet, and visit every site on the internet at the same speed. Now, granted it will not always be the same each visit. There is sure to be differing ammounts of content on each site your computer has to process. What Virgin Media plans to do, is 'throttle' your internet. Which means, they can tell your computer to fo fast to one site, but slow to another. And they do this because, most people would pay to be in the fast lane. They can also block access entirely to sites you normally go to, and redirect you to sites their sponsors create. Which means, if Google doesn't pay Virgin Media, typing google.com in the address bar will take you to a site like fetchfido.com, who has paid Virgin Media. The only way to get to Google, is to pay. Now, I believe the internet is the last vessel of our free speech. TV isn't. It's controlled by a group of people who care more about displaying an interesting story than the truth they promise. Same goes for newspapers/magazines. On the internet, everybody's oppinion is virtually the same. Nobody has a higher authority than another on the internet, except in a controlled situation. If Virgin Media takes that away, they're taking away one of our most primary rights.","A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom. So what is the alternative? A free market approach where if Yahoo pays the ISP to allow its page to be loaded up faster than its rivals? That would simply hand the internet over to companies that can afford to make their websites fastest most so blocking off a lot of the innovation on the internet. Why go to a new search engine as it will take forever to load because it has not paid the isp while google and yahoo have? This leaves government or some independent authority ensuring net nutrality as the only viable choice if the internet is to stay as creative as it is.","Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. “Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.” [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]","Net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should remain neutral and not be dictasted by content or money.","Net neutrality. Nope. You don't get to play the victim. I'm a moderate, so I think both sides are crazy and ostracize each other. Everyone benefits from net neutrality.","The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate!","Net Neutrality Net Neutrality is an issue coming up with increasing regularity with service providers altering, blocking, or prioritizing content. With modern society becoming increasingly dependent on free and unfettered flow of information as the internet provides, Net Neutrality is becoming increasingly vital to future economic growth. Firstly, one of the most common arguments against Net Neutrality is that it is internet regulation, using the latter word as a pejorative. Free market economy, they say, mandates that ISPs may run their networks however they choose. However, they neglect the fact that the internet is a market itself, and ISPs act not so much as companies presiding over a resource as governments presiding over an economy. Just as the government needs restraint on its own economic control in order for its economy to grow, so the service providers need to exercise restraint in their control over the internet's tubes for it to grow. Secondly, let's look at what gives the internet such vast economic potential in the first place: it is this level playing field that has been maintained up to this point, giving McDonalds just as much potential for a great internet presence as the restaurant down the street. Of course this has been skewed by advertising and convention (people are more likely to go to places they've heard of, for example), but this will only be exacerbated to an extreme degree by the loss of net neutrality. Allowing the service provider arbitrary control over what gets to their end users will inevitably impose a huge burden on smaller website owners who cannot afford to front the cash that Google or Amazon can in order to get priority access to end users. The loss of net neutrality will mean a huge barrier to entry into any market as the internet becomes increasingly integral to information gathering, which will damage economic competitiveness not only between internet companies, but anybody for whom an internet presence is important.","Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet \"Net Neutrality Will Increase Government Monitoring of Internet Traffic.\" Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views: \"Net neutrality calls for the Federal government to enforce standards on how online data is transmitted. But to accomplish this, there would have to be a significant increase in federal monitoring of online traffic at all levels to ensure compliance, including both the public Internet and dedicated private networks. Moreover, once inevitable disputes arose, federal courts would become involved, which would likely lead to even higher levels of monitoring.\"","Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field","Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin!","block access to websites that deny the Holocaust The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality","Risk of a two-tier Internet This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship – not having net neutrality will not stop users accessing certain sites, just make it slower. Data from some points of origin, especially games and file-sharing programmes slow down the entire network. It’s unfair to other users.","Net Neutrality may restrict value-added services David Farber at Carnegie Mellon, whom Wired once called “the Paul Revere of the Digital Revolution,\" wrote in a letter to Congress: \"The problem is that some of the practices that network neutrality would prohibit could increase the value of the Internet for customers.\"","The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Mr Believer (Pro), thank you for proposing this interesting topic. Pro is in favor of internet neutrality, or transparency, or equality, or freedom - as opposed to the controls proposed by Virgin Media to limit access to certain sites based on bandwidth or advertising arrangements. Well, while I agree that a China-esque approach to Internet control sounds dreadful, this scheme is not being proposed by a government but by a corporation, which is also one of the last vestiges of real freedom. Corporations can do whatever they like in the free market. If they want to sell pickled rabbit turds, they can. They are free to try...and fail. As such, Virgin Media is free to try this bandwidth throttling scheme. If their customers like it, they will prosper. If their customers hate it, they will fail and the customers will switch to other vendors. If no other vendors currently exist, I promise you they soon will. In the United States, telephony was once controlled by a very small cabal of large corporations. However, people didn't like the policies of those corporations, and now we have dozens of contract-free, internet-based and cell-based telephone company options. While Virgin's scheme sounds dastardly, it is merely an expression of the free market. They are free to try. If you, the consumer, don't like their service, don't pay for it. Net Neutrality is not in danger.","Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet Argument 1: In case of emergency, it is important to have the ability to regulate. Op. Argument: \"I don't see any threats of terrorism\" Response: First, there is a difference between regulation and censorship. Regulating has to do with net neutrality as much as censorship. Second, it doesn't matter if you don't see the cyber terror threats. The fact is that they exist. It was exemplified by Sony, and there is proof in my evidence. Third, if you don't understand how government regulation would help, follow the link I gave in round 2 for more information. Argument 2: Net neutrality, econ Op Argument: they spy on us Response: Again, if you don't want someone spying on you, it is your duty to elect leaders who will produce anti-spying legislation. It is important that we deal with the real threat over my opponent being paranoid. My opponent has shown no evidence that the government's goal is to spy via or heavily censor the internet. Argument 3: Net neutrality, ethically Op argument: Governing isn't neutral Response: We need to look at what is definite. Right now on the internet, there is definitely a lack of net neutrality, more money equates to a larger internet presence. However, the government is an uncertainty. I think it is important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. We are electing them from us. They are not out to harm us. Additionally, when my opponent says \"It's just taking some of the power from the rich and giving all the power to the government\", he/she is mistaken. Maintaining net neutrality is about giving the rich and the poor equal opportunities on the internet. Argument 4: Protecting privacy Op Argument: Government can't be trusted with privacy. Response: Business have real interest in taking information whereas the government does not. We again need to look at what is certain. Although I disagree with this, we can call the government a maybe in terms of privacy for the sake of argument. We should trust a maybe to protect us instead of letting companies that are with certain trying to get our information succeed. Stepping back, it remains important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. The government consists of people we have given our trust by voting into office. We need to put our safety in their hands. These are the four voting points in this round, I urge a pro ballot.","ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html","Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace Doc Searls. \"Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutrering.\" Linux Journal. March 3, 2006: \"By framing the Net as a neutral place, we assure that it will continue to serve as what it has already been for more than ten years: a public marketplace where private enterprise of all forms can not only grow and thrive, but can do both better than it ever has anywhere, ever, before.\"","Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Conservative lobbyists who would abolish net neutrality are quick to brand the Open Internet Order as a regulative measure. Regulation to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire. Somehow, allowing huge internet service-providing corporations to exercise any kind of profit-seeking behavior they can come up with is better for business than giving new sites a chance to grow. In a Forbes article titled \"Net Neutrality Is a Bad Idea Supported by Poor Analogies,\" Jeffrey Dorfman writes \"[Net neutrality] is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.\" That would be a rich analogy, right? Response: Broadband service is not ice cream and, categorically, it comes in one flavor anyway. What varies is its quantity. Conservatives who trumpet the anti-regulation cause have no ground to stand on. They do not argue for anti-regulation, they hope to take the power of regulation from the government and give it to the private corporations.","Net Neutrality Why should a few big corporations get control over the Internet? I have a example of why Net Neutrality is good. Say a ISP like Comcast has a new streaming service called Watchcast, should they have the right to block Netflix? With a majority of Americans living in an area with access to only one ISP, If they can only have Comcast that means they could not watch Netflix. Is that a good thing?","Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.","Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall. It is not essential that network neutrality be good for Internet Service Providers, so long as it is judged good for the public and websites overall, and sufficiently tolerable for ISPs. A good analogy is any piece of consumer protection regulation, such as seat belts or food-packing industry regulations, which certainly cost the businesses under consideration a little bit of money, but do so in the interest of the general public. Therefore, any conclusion that net neutrality is somewhat harmful to network owners does not mean that the idea of network neutrality is, overall, a bad idea.","Insert topic here. Straight into contentions: 1) Net neutrality would go against the idea of a free market. Obviously in our capitalist society, we are free to form whatever companies we wish and attempt to market our idea to the general public. The same would go for ISP's; why limit the serviceability of a company? Net neutrality essentially neutralizes every ISP, making all companies provide the same network, and eliminating competition and the idea of capitalism. 2) No ISP can force everyone to have a slow network, so \"net 'inequality'\" is not a problem. Because we are a capitalist economy, a company is allowed to try whatever marketing ideas they wish. Since there is more than one ISP, the consumers are free to choose the one that pleases them. If an ISP slows down that consumer's internet to make them pay for speed, then that person will simply switch providers. That's all for now: I negate that \"Net neutrality should be made into law and enforced\", because it goes against the idea of capitalism and is unnecessary.","Net Neutrality Bro. Net neutrality is not needed. I'm telling you guys. Just because you have to spend like a billion dollars just for one Google search doesn't mean the end of the world. Seriously, we are probably better off without the internet, anyway. This is the start of something---I can feel it. Having net neutrality can damage the world economy in terrible ways. When the world realizes that they actually don't need the internet we will all be happy. I hope you know that.","Net neutrality \"replaces technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight. We may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.","Net neutrality. I think the Internet would still remain neutral. Why? The Internet is capitalist more so without government control on how people charge you for services. The only thing net neutrality really did was prevent a provider from charging you for certain apps or other services like debate.org. Just like with cable or DirectTV you must pay more for better quality content or shows like NFL Sunday Ticket you pay more for more. So, if Sprint charges more for services like YouTube why not go to Verizon where YouTube is free.","Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality \"Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment.\" Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: \"Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.\"","Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. \"A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing (\"throttling\") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting \"network testing\" and that net neutrality rules permit \"reasonable network management practices\"\" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for \"quick awnsers\" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. \"Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less\" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.","Insert topic here. I pick resolution 2, \"Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced\". You are PRO, I am CON. If you would like to go first, go ahead; if not, I will next round.","Insert topic here. Hate crime enhancements are unjust in America: Pro John McCain made a very poor choice in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate: Pro (For this one, I will pick another suitable candidate who he could have chosen) Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced: Pro Your choice. Whatever the topic is, this should be a good debate. Good luck.","Net neutrality will force ISPs to ask permission from FCC. Net neutrality rules will force network owners to constantly ask whether certain things they are doing are within FCC net neutrality non-discrimination regulations. Blocking spam could be one example, with the result being that ISPs spend too much money on ensuring they are safely within regulations, when they could spend those resources in more productive ways.","Net Neutrality I believe that Net Neutrality is important for the internet because it makes sure that the internet stays a free market. Corporations should not dictate how we use the internet and should not be able to choose the winners on the internet. Thanks for being respectful and a great person to do my first debate with you. I wish you best of luck on your future endeavors. December 17 2017 7:35 PM","Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. This argument is more speculative, it is true. No one really knows what will happen if net neutrality falls.","Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: \"the sky isn\"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive.\" >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O\"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can\"t see on the internet -the problem of, \"blocking and slowing down certain info is bad,\" is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, \"making the Internet better.\" Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn\"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \"slow service,\" or being, \"anti-free speech,\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, \"dire problems?\" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don\"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response","Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.","Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech","Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal \"War and Peace Report,\" and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is \"the first amendment issue of our time.\" With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. \"With great power,\" says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, \"comes great responsibility.\" That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.","Net neutrality forces network owners to operate in suboptimal ways \"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\" An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: \"to bring about a utopian desire for virtually unlimited access over a limited resource, government would require broadband providers to operate in ways not necessarily in the best interest of the companies or their paying customers.\"","Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.","Net Neutrality Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.","Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. \"Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!\" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.","Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate."],"string":"[\n \"Some data should be allowed to move faster \\\"EDITORIAL: Net neutrality. Another solution in search of a problem.\\\" Las Vegas Review-Journal. March 18th, 2010: \\\"A market exists to charge a premium to guarantee the immediate delivery of huge volumes of content and information -- think videoconferencing and big data downloads and transfers -- so why shouldn't a business be free to enter it? Especially if it keeps costs down for smaller customers?\\\"\",\n \"Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea Rules: No ad hominem fallacy Keep the debate civil Definitions: Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.\",\n \"The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as \\\"packets,\\\" comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like \\\"15Mbps plan\\\", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality.\",\n \"Net neutrality. Do you have any non partisan evidence contradicting net neutrality? Do you know what it even measns?\",\n \"net neutrality legislation Risk of a two-tier Internet\",\n \"Net neutrality I believe in net neutrality but I don't when reading your response I noticed that you only thought about \\\"providing your son that yacht he always wanted,\\\" and \\\"WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE POWER,\\\" and what I want to say is that net neutrality is NOT about providing people like you with more power and your son with a yacht it is about how the Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, etc. So again net neutrality isn't just about you and what you want it is about what is best for everyone. I believe if everyone is provided with an equal kind of Internet than the world will have less people like you.\",\n \"Net neutrality laws. I'll keep this short. If we don't have net neutrality companies can block or slow down websites if they don't pay a bribe. It would kill start up companies and not make the internet the fair platform it is. Companies could kill there competitors and kill competition. Also you fail at making debates impossible to accept.\",\n \"net neutrality Well, that's unfortunate. ISP's should be able to control network speed and charge accordingly. The bandwidth on the ISP's networks is limited. The only way to control access to a limited resource and balance supply and demand is to allow for the formation of free market prices. Our internet networks are a bit like the highways we drive on. The reason that some roads are extremely over-used and others are only lightly used is that the government controls the funding and construction of roads. They're a \\\"pulblic\\\" resource.\",\n \"Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies \\\"Consumers Deserve Protection\\\". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: \\\"In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality – so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn’t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet.\\\"\",\n \"Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. 1) The government is allowed to regulate certain products, even if a company creates them. Government regulation of business is a way to ensure that consumers are protected, and companies should not be given complete free rein over their products - there are always rules and regulations. 2) Internet providers created the ability to access the Internet, but not the content on the Internet itself. There is no reason that these large companies should be given the power to dictate who can access what content.\",\n \"Markets force network owners to play fair and neutral \\\"EDITORIAL: Net neutrality. Another solution in search of a problem.\\\" March 18th, 2010. Las Vegas Review-Journal: \\\"Internet service providers know their customers are a fickle lot. After all, consumers have lots of choices. If a company decides to sign on more subscribers than its network can accommodate without making corresponding investments in capacity, those subscribers won't stand for having their computers seize during routine browsing and searching. They'll jump ship. Companies have no incentive to hurt one group of paying customers in favor of another.\\\"\",\n \"Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Many net neutrality activists would have you believe the internet is a green pasture of freedom in which information disseminates freely. This is not exactly true. Like Cerf said, innovation is welcome at any and all levels of the internet, and yet, in recent years, it has become dominated by single oligarchic rulers. Google is the main search engine, YouTube is the main video hosting platform, Amazon is the main retailer, Netflix is the main film and television hosting site. The list goes on. For almost any information or service you could want from the internet, one company usually dominates the field.\",\n \"Net neutrality To conclude, I'll do a short rebuttal, and then I'll do a recap of the whole debate. == Rebuttal == (1) Pro says that net neutrality was a \\\"founding principle\\\" of the Internet. First, Pro's simply wrong: \\\"net neutrality\\\" is a recent phrase, coined by Tim Wu in 2003. [1] Second, Pro offers no source for his claim, so it's unreliable (and again, wrong). Third, even if Pro's right that net neutrality is a \\\"founding principle,\\\" that's irrelevant to this debate. The issue we're debating is whether to require net neutrality, or whether to allow entrepreneurs to experiment (e.g. Lariat Wireless, discussed in Round 2 and dropped by Pro). (2) Pro says antitrust laws \\\"don't work because regulation of ISPs are horrible.\\\" But that makes no sense. Regulations aren't relevant to how the antitrust laws work. Antitrust laws apply in the absence of regulations. Antitrust laws prevent Amazon from blocking other online sites because the antitrust laws explicitly prohibit the \\\"attempt to monopolize\\\" and the \\\"abuse of monopoly power.\\\" There's no other way to characterize \\\"paying to block your competitors\\\" than an \\\"abuse of monopoly power\\\" or an \\\"attempt to monopolize.\\\" Both are illegal under our antitrust laws. (3) Pro continues to assert that the \\\"FCC guy\\\" was \\\"funded by version,\\\" but he provides no source for that claim. There's no reason to think FCC commissioners are funded by ISPs. (4) Pro says the FCC passed net neutrality rules. Yes, that's true. But that's also completely irrelevant to the debate, which is about whether there should be net neutrality laws, not whether there exist any net neutrality laws. And if the debate's about whether there exists net neutrality laws, then Pro still loses because the FCC rules haven't gone into effect yet, they're being challenged in the courts (and the last couple net neutrality rules the FCC approved were struck down by courts), and a change in administration could reverse the FCC's rule. (5) I agree with Pro that government should regulate some things, including some aspects of telecommunications. But there's no need to regulate net neutrality. == Recap == The argument against net neutrality is simple: net neutrality doesn't distinguish procompetitive discrimination from anticompetitive discrimination. Pro never challenged that argument. Instead, he claims that net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent anticompetitive discrimination. But as I explained throughout the debate, that's simply untrue. Our antitrust laws -- which have developed over the past 100 years -- are enough to protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination. The antitrust laws also allow entrepreneurs like Lariat Wireless (see Round 2) to experiment with procompetitive forms of data discrimination. The idea is to cater to the consumer, and in doing so, lower prices. The net result is that more people can get online than if we had a rigid net neutrality law, because prices are lower. It also leads to creative business models, which spurts growth and innovation. Pro never contests the substance of my argument. His only points throughout the debate focus on showing that ISPs can harm consumers and competition in the absence of net neutrality. But Pro offered no sourcing for any of his claims, even though I asked multiple times. The reason is because most of his claims aren't true. Moreover, I showed throughout the debate that Pro's wrong, because the antitrust laws already -- and the keyword there is \\\"already\\\" -- stop ISPs from harming consumers and competition. Pro never argues otherwise. Thus, there's simply no reason to displace our antitrust laws, which are flexible and fact-based, with a rigid net neutrality law that doesn't distinguish the procompetitive from the anticompetitive.\",\n \"Network neutrality Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet:\",\n \"Net Neutrality Thanks Tyler, here we go.Main Contention- Resource PrioritizationNet Neutrality advocates proffers a case that of non-discriminatory. This is a major flaw when it comes to resource prioritization. Large companies such as netflix requires huge amounts of data, while users such as ourselves require very little. The complexity of technology leads to a path of optimisation. Resource optimisation is key in technological advancements. Thus, Each user should be optimised to its own needs.RebuttalsTyler, the success of newer start-ups, again is correlating with resource prioritisations. Newer starters rarely need any additional incentives, they usually arrive with whatever they need. Furthermore, the resources that they need are nothing compare to the power core companies. This is just a matter of prioritising and optimising everyone to suit everyone needs. Nothing more, Nothing less.As far as I'm concerned, there is no violation of the first amendment. The right to free speech is still upheld, unless Tyler wishes to go to specifics. Thanks Tyler, I hand it back to you.\",\n \"Net neutrality Pro seems to think we've had net neutrality for years. But that is simply untrue. The entire controversy surrounding net neutrality concerns proposed laws, not laws that already exist. [4] Unless Pro can cite a single net neutrality law that's existed for years, his entire argument falls apart. The reality is that we've never had net neutrality and the Internet has not only been fun but grown at an incredible pace. As PayPal founder Peter Thiel notes, \\\"[n]et neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don\\\"t see any reason why it\\\"s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past.\\\" [5] -- Pro says \\\"in many places you only have one [ISP] option.\\\" That's true, but the big companies aren't to blame. Local governments are the problem. \\\"Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned 'rights of way' so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need 'pole attachment' contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.\\\" [6] The result: \\\"Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost.\\\" [6] ISPs try to enter new areas all the time. The problem is that entry costs -- not the laying wires part but the costs of negotiating with local governments -- are extremely high. That's something neither net neutrality nor antitrust laws will change. The irony of Pro's position is that it asks for MORE government regulation when government is ALREADY the biggest obstacle preventing competition among ISPs. The solution is getting local governments to allow the free market to do its thing. That's how you get more competition among ISPs, which in turn lowers prices. -- Pro claims that \\\"people do nothing because they are bought off\\\" and \\\"there are many loopholes.\\\" But that's also not true. Pro gives no source for his claims because the claims are bunk. ISPs aren't bribing anyone. I'm not even sure who they'd bribe, but note that the only way bribes work is under a regulatory scheme, which is what Pro supports. I'm the one arguing that we let the free market do its thing, which means bribes wouldn't help anyone. As for loopholes, again I have no idea what Pro's talking about. If by loopholes, Pro's referring to the antitrust laws, there aren't really any loopholes in the law. You either show harm to consumers or competition, or you don't show harm to consumers or competition. It's economics all the way down. If you show harm, it's illegal. That's how the laws work. So if an ISP has a monopoly on providing broadband, and it charges monopoly prices for \\\"fast-lanes,\\\" they'd be found liable and/or guilty under current antitrust laws. There's no need to build a rigid regulatory scheme on top of that. -- No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a \\\"fast lane\\\" mail service is \\\"unfair,\\\" \\\"undemocratic,\\\" or \\\"bad for the economy.\\\" Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. ATT has even said that under a net neutrality regime, they'd have no incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure. The reality is that net neutrality chokes broadband competition, because it prevents experimentation in business models and pricing. We don't need net neutrality because the antitrust laws already protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Broadband providers can't do anything that would hurt consumers or competition. If they do, it means they have monopoly power (because you can't impose monopoly prices without monopoly power, as consumers would just buy your service from your competitors). And if they have monopoly power and abuse that power (by extracting monopoly rents), they're already doing something illegal under current antitrust laws. Which is why FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has said that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don\\\"t like are non-existent: \\\"The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it\\\"s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy.\\\" [7] ISPs don't slow the Internet down in a free market; they compete with each other, which creates incentives to speed the Internet up. Net neutrality would choke that competition. [4] http://money.cnn.com... [5] http://www.nationalreview.com... [6] http://www.wired.com... [7] http://www.fcc.gov...\",\n \"Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet \\\"Net Neutrality is Simple, Conservative Consumer Protection.\\\" Public Knowledge on Opposing Views.com: Net Neutrality \\\"is not regulating the Internet. It is regulating the companies which provide access to the Internet – a traditional function that the FCC has largely abandoned to the detriment of the country.\\\"\",\n \"Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting \\\"network testing\\\" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit \\\"reasonable network management practices\\\" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.\",\n \"The US shouldn't require net neutrality. I accept the Con side of the debate that the U.S. shouldn't require net neutrality. I am looking forward to Pro posting their first arguments.\",\n \"Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem Arpan Sura. \\\"The Problem With Network Neutrality.\\\" FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: \\\"Solution in Search of a Problem. Currently there are no principles of network neutrality encoded into law. So ISPs are already free to block or favor content as they please. It is telling that none of them has. In fact, no proponent of network neutrality can cite an existing problem to which network neutrality is a solution.\\\"\",\n \"Should The US Keep Net Neutrality So you make some really interesting points. I'm just gonna refute what you said in each paragraph separately. Paragraph #1: So you used an example of, \\\"paying more for water.\\\" But here is the thing. It really isn't that. A common misconception is that the price of basic internet will be raised. No. Everyone will have internet at the same price as it was during Net Neutrality, but you can pay for faster internet if you want it, similar to if you want to upgrade your hotel room. You can upgrade if you have the money, but if you don't have the money, it doesn't mean that you don't have a good hotel room. You still do! So it beneficial to people who have a few extra dollars. Paragraph #2: So you said that it would be hard to make businesses it completely backwards. As I said in my second point, \\\"Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation,\\\" FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumers benefit. According to Economic Analyst Ainsley Miller, \\\"a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content for everyone.\\\" Paragraph #3 and 4: You were talking about a violation of free speech, but according to Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \\\"slow service,\\\" or being, \\\"anti-free speech,\\\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. So, here is what I just said hopefully simplified. If the Internet Service Provider slows down certain websites, the ISPs will actually lose money because they don't want to be thought of as 'anti-free speech.' And if they are, then people will move to a new ISP. So it is actually in the best interest of the ISPs to not slow down content. Instead, they can slow down bad things, like scams, hackers, and things that people don't want to see online. They won't push their personal agenda because then they will lose money, something that they don't want to do. Thank you!\",\n \"net neutrality I accept.I will provide one clarification and then post my first arguments and rebuttals in round 2.Net neutrality: this is the idea that ISP's (internet service providers) like Comcast should not give preferential treatment to any specific traffic on their network.\",\n \"The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Before I move onto refutations, I'd like to draw attention to the style the negations last argument adopted. Small chunks of arguments were taken, out of context of the larger argument. Those arguments were then either weakly refuted, called irrelevant despite it being brought up by the negation and being quite central to the resolution, or had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument. And don't forget the latin and logical fallacies. This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart. So first, let me restate the definition of net neutrality, as given three lines into the debate. Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. Net neutrality is not access rates, it is not an \\\"explicit price control mechanism\\\", it is about how packets are treated and delivered. The neg decided to refute almost all of my points with a variation of the same argument, that being that traffic is sent over private property and thus should be allowed to be manipulated and used however the ISP wants. In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument. To list those arguments opposed morally, thus granted technically. -The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved -ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises -Control of the Internet will be in the hands of a handful of large companies that control the Backbone Network. \\\"It ignores the nature of what the Internet is\\\" The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information. To grant control of that system to those few companies, you must ignore the nature of what the Internet is. \\\"It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base\\\" *This* is a contractual issue, when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on, that being the access rate these torrenters use, the fault does not lie with those who use their package, it lies with Comcast. \\\"Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality.\\\" Again, I point to the definition of net neutrality, and this arguments nature as a contractual issue. Net neutrality is about how packets are treated and sent. If ISPs oversell their product, it is their responsibility to either handle the packages they sold, or re design those packages. \\\"dumb internet\\\" This is refuted by the private property argument, addressed lower down. \\\"Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user.\\\" The ability for customization by the end user is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs. This is part of the end-to-end design, and is used to show that traffic shaping isn't needed. \\\"\\\"entrepreneurial nature of the internet\\\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, \\\" This is the motivation of companies to side with multi-billion dollar companies over garage companies yet again. It is in the ISPs obvious benefit to side with google over that kid with an old lunix computer running a search engine to get some ad revenue. \\\"I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source.\\\" You ignored the giant pipeline that most internet traffic will eventually flow through (see http://en.wikipedia.org...) \\\"Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates?\\\" Multi-billion dollar company = more profit The private property, and reduced income argument. Our governments responsibility is to protect its citizens. Part of this is to ensure that they are not exploited at the expense of profit. Take Goldman Sachs for example, we defiantly reduced their ability to profit by adding regulation, and preventing more of the trading that cause the economic downfall, but we did this because they were taking advantage of the consumer to make that profit. In the same vein we must protect the Internet from being exploited at the cost of the consumer in the name of profit. We are still buying that package from the ISP, and to say that ISPs are allowed to invade upon the property we have purchased in the form of data transmission, much less in the name of private property, is ridiculous. especially when this access rate argument can be negated by buying high access rate packages. Gah procrastination, 20 seconds remaining!\",\n \"Net Neutrality My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.\",\n \"The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered \\\"no\\\" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor\\\"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn\\\"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don\\\"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers\\\" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs\\\", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org...\",\n \"Internet has been successful w/o govt regs like net neutrality Kyle McSlarrow, President & CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said in a February 2006 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Net Neutrality: \\\"I would like to focus this morning on three main points. First, Congress's policy of leaving the Internet unregulated has been a resounding success. The resulting network flexibility has encouraged billions of dollars in investment. Companies that include high speed Internet services among their offerings have the freedom to experiment with multiple business models, producing more choices and competition in content and providers for consumers, and more innovation than ever before.\\\" Mr. McSlarrow's overarching argument is that laws like Net Neutrality would limit the innovative business and pricing models of Internet providers like Comcast.\",\n \"Net neutrality. One thing I have noticed since net neutrality began in 2015 was that conservatives were ostracized in a lot of social media platforms, which is why they have turned to sights that they pay for where they are not interfered with at all. In a way net neutrality has opened it up for large social media sites were able to almost block conservative content without anyone having a say in it. Which is why they support it so much as well as why they show the negative to net neutrality so often. Finally, net neutrality just prevents companies from charging you for certain items like giving YouTube unlimited power to ISPs without having to pay.\",\n \"Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Since the Progressive Era, the United States has not harbored a true capitalism. For some weird reason a laissez-faire market leads to massive wealth inequality, exploitation of lower class workers, and gives unbridled power to the super wealthy. While we haven't exactly succeeded in solving that problem, we have introduced regulations to help even the playing field and create conditions such that businesses of any size have an improved chance of getting off the ground. Internet business is no different. Before any website loomed large, it was just a small, struggling startup. Remove net neutrality, and you will remove the even playing field that allows new companies to get a foothold.\",\n \"Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet In my second rebuttal, I will simply refute my opponents refutations of my arguments. I shall also point out that none of my responses have yet been responded to. Argument 1: Right to regulate. Op response: The government is not always good. Response 1: In the case of a real threat, not always good is better than definitively bad. Even if you accept my opponent's argument that the government is not always good, when choosing between definite bad and only sometimes bad, you are going to choose the government every time. The government needs to be able to regulate in the case of cyber terror. Response 2: As citizens of the United States, we are the ones electing who will make the decisions. For this reason, we must give trust to the government as we decide its contents. The government is built on a checks and balances design. If the executive branch acts based on the wrong reasons, the legislative branch, the people we actively elect, have the power to impeach. This means that we need to trust the government to do right. Argument 2: Econ. Op response: \\\"I don't think government regulation is required to make the internet free.\\\" Response 1: My opponent clearly lacks sources. This is not a debate of opinion; this is a debate of facts. My source clearly shows a need for government regulation for maintaining net neutrality. Response 2: Net neutrality isn't just about making the internet free: it's about making it so people with more money don't have visibility on the internet. This, in fact, cannot be achieved without government regulation as it would be the large companies such as Google making these decisions, companies that have invested interest in no net neutrality. Government regulation is important for maintaining net neutrality. Argument 3: Purpose of the internet. Op response 1: People should decide the importance of the internet Response: I agree. I happen to be a person, and I believe that that is what is important about the internet. Op response 2: Online business is important. Response: Net neutrality in no way harms online business. Net neutrality would only make more fair for the smaller online business with less money. I would agree that online shopping is beneficial, though regulation in no way prevents that. Argument 4: Privacy. Op response: We can't trust the government because it spies on people. Response 1: Go back to my second response concerning my first argument. As we are the ones electing these officials, we need to trust them in order for them to do their job. If they are spying, we must trust that it is for good reason. Response 2: This is similar to my first response concerning my first argument. The companies have real interest in breaching privacy via the internet, whereas the government does not. We need to trust this government because it can protect us against people that are actually trying to harm us, whether or not the government is perfect. Accordingly, I affirm.\",\n \"The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Here is a bit from the main net neutrality supporting site, savetheinternet. com, under the FAQ section. Who wants to get rid of net neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Which means it isn't just Virgin Media that's heading into this. They're followed by many other companies as well. Now, I know you might think, \\\"Well, people can just switch to Embarq or one of the 'safe' IPs\\\" But that wouldn't work exactly as planned. Why wouldn't Embarq take that opportunity to raise their prices? No matter how you look at it, we have to pay more. I know that sounds a bit greedy, but in times like this, with our economy as unstable as it is, this simply cannot turn out well. Otherwise, my arguments on the unethical nature of net neutrality still stand. I can understand if you don't intend to disagree with them, as well. As the consumer, I can't begin to think of a scenario where getting rid of net neutrality would be beneficial. Either way, I had fun. And it looks net neutrality is winning. I hear action was recently taken against Comcast.\",\n \"Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.\",\n \"A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom. The Internet is founded upon principles of the free market - people are allowed to publish content and the content's success is based upon whether or not people like it. Instead of interfering with the free market, the government should allow businesses to direct themselves. Otherwise, the system veers dangerously towards socialism. [[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html]]\",\n \"The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Net neutrality \\\"is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The first round is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.\",\n \"The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html\",\n \"allow internet service providers to block access to extremist websites ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality\",\n \"Net Neutrality \\\"The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible.\\\" Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. \\\"a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web.\\\" Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is \\\"fairer\\\", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.\",\n \"Net Neutrality How would we be better off without the internet. The internet is a great way for small or big businesses to gain publicity without any hard work. Without Net neutrality bigger businesses can just pay the ISPs to block the smaller businesses. So Net neutrality is just gonna slow down innovation.\",\n \"Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs. By setting out clear rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior, ISPs will avoid getting into trouble like Comcast did when it blocked BitTorrent users in early 2010. This would help network owners avoid getting into trouble both with anti-competitive laws as well as their customers who get angry when they discover that the company crossed the line in blocking content, discriminating between content, or charged extra for data from one site versus another.\",\n \"Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure: Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds. Because Network Neutrality blocks such a tiered system from emerging, many believe it prevents network owners from raising the revenue needed to make the investments that will build the robust Internet of the future.\",\n \"Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners \\\"Protect Net neutrality.\\\" St. Petersburg Times Editorial. April 10, 2010: \\\"Without Net neutrality rules, the big telecommunications and cable providers could decide to start charging Web sites for faster delivery or prefer content providers associated with their own conglomerates. This would crush innovation and competition by giving the biggest companies the ability to nudge smaller start-ups out of view.\\\"\",\n \"Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet: As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, \\\"The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.\\\"[2]\",\n \"Network neutrality Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace\",\n \"Net neutrality Internet neutrality is The principle that internet service providers and the government should treat all data on the website equally, with the exception of anything illegal like child porn. That means companies can't slow down a website like debate.org for any reason or favor one website over another. How ISPs would have you believe is that without this rule that they would speed up websites making them faster for everyone. However in practice how this works is that ISPs slow down everyone then demand that companies pay a bribe to make the internet go the same speed it used to. Let's take Hulu and Netflix. Without net neutrality GCI for example would slow them both down then demand they pay say One million dollars to be in the so called \\\"fast lane\\\" which is really what they had before. If Netflix payed the bribe and Hulu didn't they would slow Hulu and Netflix would have a unfair advantage. They could keep threatening Netflix and force them to pay more and more. It would also make it impossible for start up companies to go anywhere because they would be to slow because they can't pay the bribe so start up businesses couldn't be successful. For more info check out this video my CGP grey's video on the subject.\",\n \"Internet providers have a right to control their networks \\\"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\\\" An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: \\\"What's at stake is who gets control, and who pays the cost. We believe businesses, yes even big corporations like AT&T, have a right to control what they own and to operate without financial penalty imposed by the government.\\\"\",\n \"Net Neutrality Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away.\",\n \"Net neutrality. Where is your rebuttal in that? We cannot have a debate when someone just throws an opinion out without any evidence, I just showed you how it is not fair and all you have is \\\"I am a moderate therefore net neutrality is fair.\\\" I do not know if you took the time to do some research but I am a moderate as well but I still believe it harms small business and conservatives, so please give me something to work off of next time.\",\n \"Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Today, anyone can create a website for very little money and fill it with whatever they want. For a lucky few, their website provides information or services that the public generally likes. They share their website with friends and over social media, word catches on, they place some key advertisements with GoogleAds and elsewhere on the internet, they create some solid SEO content and, before long, they're rolling in internet gold and glory. Striking down net neutrality will cut the fanfare short. Writing to Congress in 2005, Vice President of Google and inventor of the Internet Protocol, Vint Cerf argued that: \\\"The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control … a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.\\\" This kind of freedom that the anti-net neutrality crowd is after has not existed in any industry in the U.S. since the Gilded Age, when the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan exercised monopolistic control over their respective industries to keep the playing field stacked in their favor. Mark Fiore describes this with a Dr. Seuss-esque cartoon.\",\n \"net neutrality Net neutrality is very important for the nation, as it does not allow bigger companies like Google or ebay to make their network faster and slow down other smaller networks\",\n \"The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAT THE INTERNET IS OUR LAST VESTAGE OF FREE SPEECH. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. NET NEUTRALITY IS. I believe that Net Neutrality should be spared, and should be kept away from Virgin Media's grubby, greedy hands. For those who don't know, I'll summarize net neutrality in a simple way. Net neutrality is what lets you sit at your computer, hop on the internet, and visit every site on the internet at the same speed. Now, granted it will not always be the same each visit. There is sure to be differing ammounts of content on each site your computer has to process. What Virgin Media plans to do, is 'throttle' your internet. Which means, they can tell your computer to fo fast to one site, but slow to another. And they do this because, most people would pay to be in the fast lane. They can also block access entirely to sites you normally go to, and redirect you to sites their sponsors create. Which means, if Google doesn't pay Virgin Media, typing google.com in the address bar will take you to a site like fetchfido.com, who has paid Virgin Media. The only way to get to Google, is to pay. Now, I believe the internet is the last vessel of our free speech. TV isn't. It's controlled by a group of people who care more about displaying an interesting story than the truth they promise. Same goes for newspapers/magazines. On the internet, everybody's oppinion is virtually the same. Nobody has a higher authority than another on the internet, except in a controlled situation. If Virgin Media takes that away, they're taking away one of our most primary rights.\",\n \"A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom. So what is the alternative? A free market approach where if Yahoo pays the ISP to allow its page to be loaded up faster than its rivals? That would simply hand the internet over to companies that can afford to make their websites fastest most so blocking off a lot of the innovation on the internet. Why go to a new search engine as it will take forever to load because it has not paid the isp while google and yahoo have? This leaves government or some independent authority ensuring net nutrality as the only viable choice if the internet is to stay as creative as it is.\",\n \"Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. “Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.” [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]\",\n \"Net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should remain neutral and not be dictasted by content or money.\",\n \"Net neutrality. Nope. You don't get to play the victim. I'm a moderate, so I think both sides are crazy and ostracize each other. Everyone benefits from net neutrality.\",\n \"The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate!\",\n \"Net Neutrality Net Neutrality is an issue coming up with increasing regularity with service providers altering, blocking, or prioritizing content. With modern society becoming increasingly dependent on free and unfettered flow of information as the internet provides, Net Neutrality is becoming increasingly vital to future economic growth. Firstly, one of the most common arguments against Net Neutrality is that it is internet regulation, using the latter word as a pejorative. Free market economy, they say, mandates that ISPs may run their networks however they choose. However, they neglect the fact that the internet is a market itself, and ISPs act not so much as companies presiding over a resource as governments presiding over an economy. Just as the government needs restraint on its own economic control in order for its economy to grow, so the service providers need to exercise restraint in their control over the internet's tubes for it to grow. Secondly, let's look at what gives the internet such vast economic potential in the first place: it is this level playing field that has been maintained up to this point, giving McDonalds just as much potential for a great internet presence as the restaurant down the street. Of course this has been skewed by advertising and convention (people are more likely to go to places they've heard of, for example), but this will only be exacerbated to an extreme degree by the loss of net neutrality. Allowing the service provider arbitrary control over what gets to their end users will inevitably impose a huge burden on smaller website owners who cannot afford to front the cash that Google or Amazon can in order to get priority access to end users. The loss of net neutrality will mean a huge barrier to entry into any market as the internet becomes increasingly integral to information gathering, which will damage economic competitiveness not only between internet companies, but anybody for whom an internet presence is important.\",\n \"Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet \\\"Net Neutrality Will Increase Government Monitoring of Internet Traffic.\\\" Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views: \\\"Net neutrality calls for the Federal government to enforce standards on how online data is transmitted. But to accomplish this, there would have to be a significant increase in federal monitoring of online traffic at all levels to ensure compliance, including both the public Internet and dedicated private networks. Moreover, once inevitable disputes arose, federal courts would become involved, which would likely lead to even higher levels of monitoring.\\\"\",\n \"Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field\",\n \"Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin!\",\n \"block access to websites that deny the Holocaust The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality\",\n \"Risk of a two-tier Internet This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship – not having net neutrality will not stop users accessing certain sites, just make it slower. Data from some points of origin, especially games and file-sharing programmes slow down the entire network. It’s unfair to other users.\",\n \"Net Neutrality may restrict value-added services David Farber at Carnegie Mellon, whom Wired once called “the Paul Revere of the Digital Revolution,\\\" wrote in a letter to Congress: \\\"The problem is that some of the practices that network neutrality would prohibit could increase the value of the Internet for customers.\\\"\",\n \"The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Mr Believer (Pro), thank you for proposing this interesting topic. Pro is in favor of internet neutrality, or transparency, or equality, or freedom - as opposed to the controls proposed by Virgin Media to limit access to certain sites based on bandwidth or advertising arrangements. Well, while I agree that a China-esque approach to Internet control sounds dreadful, this scheme is not being proposed by a government but by a corporation, which is also one of the last vestiges of real freedom. Corporations can do whatever they like in the free market. If they want to sell pickled rabbit turds, they can. They are free to try...and fail. As such, Virgin Media is free to try this bandwidth throttling scheme. If their customers like it, they will prosper. If their customers hate it, they will fail and the customers will switch to other vendors. If no other vendors currently exist, I promise you they soon will. In the United States, telephony was once controlled by a very small cabal of large corporations. However, people didn't like the policies of those corporations, and now we have dozens of contract-free, internet-based and cell-based telephone company options. While Virgin's scheme sounds dastardly, it is merely an expression of the free market. They are free to try. If you, the consumer, don't like their service, don't pay for it. Net Neutrality is not in danger.\",\n \"Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet Argument 1: In case of emergency, it is important to have the ability to regulate. Op. Argument: \\\"I don't see any threats of terrorism\\\" Response: First, there is a difference between regulation and censorship. Regulating has to do with net neutrality as much as censorship. Second, it doesn't matter if you don't see the cyber terror threats. The fact is that they exist. It was exemplified by Sony, and there is proof in my evidence. Third, if you don't understand how government regulation would help, follow the link I gave in round 2 for more information. Argument 2: Net neutrality, econ Op Argument: they spy on us Response: Again, if you don't want someone spying on you, it is your duty to elect leaders who will produce anti-spying legislation. It is important that we deal with the real threat over my opponent being paranoid. My opponent has shown no evidence that the government's goal is to spy via or heavily censor the internet. Argument 3: Net neutrality, ethically Op argument: Governing isn't neutral Response: We need to look at what is definite. Right now on the internet, there is definitely a lack of net neutrality, more money equates to a larger internet presence. However, the government is an uncertainty. I think it is important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. We are electing them from us. They are not out to harm us. Additionally, when my opponent says \\\"It's just taking some of the power from the rich and giving all the power to the government\\\", he/she is mistaken. Maintaining net neutrality is about giving the rich and the poor equal opportunities on the internet. Argument 4: Protecting privacy Op Argument: Government can't be trusted with privacy. Response: Business have real interest in taking information whereas the government does not. We again need to look at what is certain. Although I disagree with this, we can call the government a maybe in terms of privacy for the sake of argument. We should trust a maybe to protect us instead of letting companies that are with certain trying to get our information succeed. Stepping back, it remains important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. The government consists of people we have given our trust by voting into office. We need to put our safety in their hands. These are the four voting points in this round, I urge a pro ballot.\",\n \"ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html\",\n \"Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace Doc Searls. \\\"Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutrering.\\\" Linux Journal. March 3, 2006: \\\"By framing the Net as a neutral place, we assure that it will continue to serve as what it has already been for more than ten years: a public marketplace where private enterprise of all forms can not only grow and thrive, but can do both better than it ever has anywhere, ever, before.\\\"\",\n \"Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Conservative lobbyists who would abolish net neutrality are quick to brand the Open Internet Order as a regulative measure. Regulation to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire. Somehow, allowing huge internet service-providing corporations to exercise any kind of profit-seeking behavior they can come up with is better for business than giving new sites a chance to grow. In a Forbes article titled \\\"Net Neutrality Is a Bad Idea Supported by Poor Analogies,\\\" Jeffrey Dorfman writes \\\"[Net neutrality] is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.\\\" That would be a rich analogy, right? Response: Broadband service is not ice cream and, categorically, it comes in one flavor anyway. What varies is its quantity. Conservatives who trumpet the anti-regulation cause have no ground to stand on. They do not argue for anti-regulation, they hope to take the power of regulation from the government and give it to the private corporations.\",\n \"Net Neutrality Why should a few big corporations get control over the Internet? I have a example of why Net Neutrality is good. Say a ISP like Comcast has a new streaming service called Watchcast, should they have the right to block Netflix? With a majority of Americans living in an area with access to only one ISP, If they can only have Comcast that means they could not watch Netflix. Is that a good thing?\",\n \"Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.\",\n \"Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall. It is not essential that network neutrality be good for Internet Service Providers, so long as it is judged good for the public and websites overall, and sufficiently tolerable for ISPs. A good analogy is any piece of consumer protection regulation, such as seat belts or food-packing industry regulations, which certainly cost the businesses under consideration a little bit of money, but do so in the interest of the general public. Therefore, any conclusion that net neutrality is somewhat harmful to network owners does not mean that the idea of network neutrality is, overall, a bad idea.\",\n \"Insert topic here. Straight into contentions: 1) Net neutrality would go against the idea of a free market. Obviously in our capitalist society, we are free to form whatever companies we wish and attempt to market our idea to the general public. The same would go for ISP's; why limit the serviceability of a company? Net neutrality essentially neutralizes every ISP, making all companies provide the same network, and eliminating competition and the idea of capitalism. 2) No ISP can force everyone to have a slow network, so \\\"net 'inequality'\\\" is not a problem. Because we are a capitalist economy, a company is allowed to try whatever marketing ideas they wish. Since there is more than one ISP, the consumers are free to choose the one that pleases them. If an ISP slows down that consumer's internet to make them pay for speed, then that person will simply switch providers. That's all for now: I negate that \\\"Net neutrality should be made into law and enforced\\\", because it goes against the idea of capitalism and is unnecessary.\",\n \"Net Neutrality Bro. Net neutrality is not needed. I'm telling you guys. Just because you have to spend like a billion dollars just for one Google search doesn't mean the end of the world. Seriously, we are probably better off without the internet, anyway. This is the start of something---I can feel it. Having net neutrality can damage the world economy in terrible ways. When the world realizes that they actually don't need the internet we will all be happy. I hope you know that.\",\n \"Net neutrality \\\"replaces technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight. We may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.\",\n \"Net neutrality. I think the Internet would still remain neutral. Why? The Internet is capitalist more so without government control on how people charge you for services. The only thing net neutrality really did was prevent a provider from charging you for certain apps or other services like debate.org. Just like with cable or DirectTV you must pay more for better quality content or shows like NFL Sunday Ticket you pay more for more. So, if Sprint charges more for services like YouTube why not go to Verizon where YouTube is free.\",\n \"Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality \\\"Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment.\\\" Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: \\\"Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.\\\"\",\n \"Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. \\\"A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing (\\\"throttling\\\") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting \\\"network testing\\\" and that net neutrality rules permit \\\"reasonable network management practices\\\"\\\" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: \\\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\\\" This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for \\\"quick awnsers\\\" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. \\\"Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less\\\" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.\",\n \"Insert topic here. I pick resolution 2, \\\"Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced\\\". You are PRO, I am CON. If you would like to go first, go ahead; if not, I will next round.\",\n \"Insert topic here. Hate crime enhancements are unjust in America: Pro John McCain made a very poor choice in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate: Pro (For this one, I will pick another suitable candidate who he could have chosen) Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced: Pro Your choice. Whatever the topic is, this should be a good debate. Good luck.\",\n \"Net neutrality will force ISPs to ask permission from FCC. Net neutrality rules will force network owners to constantly ask whether certain things they are doing are within FCC net neutrality non-discrimination regulations. Blocking spam could be one example, with the result being that ISPs spend too much money on ensuring they are safely within regulations, when they could spend those resources in more productive ways.\",\n \"Net Neutrality I believe that Net Neutrality is important for the internet because it makes sure that the internet stays a free market. Corporations should not dictate how we use the internet and should not be able to choose the winners on the internet. Thanks for being respectful and a great person to do my first debate with you. I wish you best of luck on your future endeavors. December 17 2017 7:35 PM\",\n \"Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. This argument is more speculative, it is true. No one really knows what will happen if net neutrality falls.\",\n \"Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: \\\"the sky isn\\\"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive.\\\" >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O\\\"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can\\\"t see on the internet -the problem of, \\\"blocking and slowing down certain info is bad,\\\" is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, \\\"making the Internet better.\\\" Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn\\\"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \\\"slow service,\\\" or being, \\\"anti-free speech,\\\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, \\\"dire problems?\\\" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don\\\"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response\",\n \"Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.\",\n \"Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech\",\n \"Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal \\\"War and Peace Report,\\\" and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is \\\"the first amendment issue of our time.\\\" With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. \\\"With great power,\\\" says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, \\\"comes great responsibility.\\\" That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.\",\n \"Net neutrality forces network owners to operate in suboptimal ways \\\"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\\\" An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: \\\"to bring about a utopian desire for virtually unlimited access over a limited resource, government would require broadband providers to operate in ways not necessarily in the best interest of the companies or their paying customers.\\\"\",\n \"Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.\",\n \"Net Neutrality Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.\",\n \"Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. \\\"Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!\\\" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.\",\n \"Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":45,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should the voting age be lowered?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16\nIn the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don\"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth?","Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK.\nPro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.","The voting age should be lowered to 16\nThe younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.","Voters should be required to take a test before voting\nSide-resolution- Voting age limit should be dropped if there is voting test. Lack of knowledge is the reason why voting is 18 plus, right? Then why people who don't anything about the candidates allowed to vote? Surely there should be test for voting, and the age limit dropped.","lower the voting age to 16\nVoting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages","The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14\nBecause of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.","voting age should be lowered\nIt's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote? http://www.phillyburbs.com...","39. Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States.\n\"A child becomes an adult when he realizes he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong. \" Because I agree with these words of Hungarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, and because I figured that out before I was 18, I support the resolution, which states: RESOLVED: Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: LEGAL AGE: the age at which a person acquires full legal rights and responsibilities ADULTHOOD: the state (and responsibilities) of a person who has attained maturity SHOULD: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) REDUCED: brought down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc. (all defined from . http://www.Dictionary.com...) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The \"legal age\" is the age at which a person in the U. S. receives full legal rights. However, in these fifty nifty states not all rights are acquired on the same birthday. Indeed, if all rights were taken into consideration, the legal age might be 55 (when you can order Senior Citizen Specials at Perkins). But a good portion of these rights (pornography, voting, military, smoking, gambling, etc. ) are officially set at age 18. Therefore, I shall assume that by \"the legal age,\" the resolution means 18, and I shall concentrate my entire case on the legal rights attained at that age. 2. The resolution does not specify what the new legal age should be, nor does it mandate that the PRO provide a specific new legal age. The debate is only about the merits and drawbacks of a lowered legal age. If the CON requires a specific age, let's just say I advocate moving it from 18 to 16. With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into three points: I: THE LEGAL AGE IS INTENDED AS A SIGN OF MATURITY. Like membership in an exclusive club, the legal age is a criterion which determines the eligibility of a person to receive some right or privilege. Legal age is an imaginary line that separates the men from the boys (or the women from the girls) in regards to a certain right. For example, a six-year-old child probably could not responsibly gamble, but a 32-year-old probably could. By defining the legal age for gambling (and other rights) at 18, the government's goal is to express that a person below that age is immature, while a person above that age is mature (in terms of the right in question). II: THIS STANDARD OF MATURITY IS CONTRADICTORY. Unfortunately, this maturity standard is rife with contradiction. Instead of having a clearly defined standard of what constitutes maturity in terms of age, the government has blurred the imaginary line to the point where it is virtually unrecognizable. There are two reasons for this, which I shall label \"A\" and \"B. \" A: The legal age has exceptions. The legal age for joining the military is 18 in general (no pun intended). However, this age does not truly represent a level of maturity, because 17-year-olds can still join the military with parental consent. If the legal age truly measured maturity, this exception would not be allowed. Another exception of the legal age is emancipation. Emancipation is a legal process by which a minor may sever all (or most) ties with their parents. While parental consent is required for students under 18 years of age for many different rights, this criterion is removed when the parents no longer have legal authority over their child. By the defined legal age, emancipated minors would still be considered immature and ineligible for the rights of an 18-year-old, but by the current legal process many of these rights become available. In both of these cases, the legal age fails to assign maturity uniformly. The imaginary line that individuals cross in the process of maturing is lowered in special cases, with no actual test to determine whether the person whom the bar is lowered for is mature enough to handle these rights. This creates a contradiction, and makes the legal age an illegitimate requirement. B: More serious rights have lower levels of maturity than less serious rights. In most states, the legal age for applying for a driver's license is 16, but it ranges from 17 (in New Jersey) to 14 � (in my homeland, the Dakotas). In any case, the legal age for this right is lower than the legal age for most other rights - 18. This is a massive error in judgment. The government assumes that a child is mature enough to handle a moving vehicle (which is rather difficult to learn, and can cause serious injury or death if used improperly) while at the same time immature with regards to voting (which has no dangers associated with it) or purchasing pornography (which, in a legal sense, is equally not dangerous). If we were to administer standards rationally, the legal age for driving would be equal to or higher than the legal age for other rights. All of these contradictions turn the legal age into a meaningless quantitative measure with no legitimacy. When a standard can be bent in special cases, and when the standard incorrectly assigns maturity for different rights, it is no standard at all. It is an antiquated and abused system that has failed its purpose of defining maturity in legal situations. III: THE LEGAL AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO CORRECT THESE CONTRADICTIONS. If the legal age for the rights given at 18 were lowered, we could remove these contradictions and re-establish the legal age as a level which would properly define and regulate maturity. All of these conflicting rights could be established at age 16, perhaps, and no exceptions would be allowed for military enlistment, emancipation, or anything else. The standard set by the government would finally have legitimacy to separate mature from immature and assign rights and responsibilities accordingly. For the above stated reasons, I support the lowering of the legal age.","Lowering the voting age\nLadies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called \"kangaroo youth\" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, \"Get out the Vote\" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's \"Get out the Vote\" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.","The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16\nYoung people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.","The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.\nDefinitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.","The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14\nThe voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on \"my side of the fence\", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. \"The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14.\" 2. Compromise. \"The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17.\" 3. Alternative solution. \"Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis.\" You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.","Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16\nGive your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?","Voting Age\nI think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)","Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17\nBefore I launch into my arguments, I think it reasonable to provide some context to our Democratic Republic and the purpose of voting. This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves. As indicated, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. In the history of the United States, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as the vote has been expanded to groups that initially could not vote. For example, consider the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. It is time that the liberty and sovereignty embodied by capacity to vote for President be extended to 17 year olds. For what reason could be given to restrict the liberty of 17 year olds. John Locke argued that The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free\"(1) The question of this debate is therefore, do 17 year olds possess the capability of reason. I submit that clearly, 17 year olds are as capable as those 18 years old. The difference between the two ages is negligible at best. The law of the land in most respects acknowledges this. Consider 17 year olds pay taxes (2), drive vehicles, be tried as adults for crimes, and can even die for their country serving in the military. (3) It seems arbitrary to submit 17 year olds to all the responsibility of 18 year olds without the power or sovereignty to vote. Until 17 year olds are granted the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military, but being unrepresented in the government to which they are subjected to is tyrannical. My opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. As I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro! Sources (1) . http://www.constitution.org... (2) . https://www.irs.gov... (3) . https://en.wikipedia.org..."],"string":"[\n \"The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16\\nIn the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don\\\"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth?\",\n \"Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK.\\nPro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.\",\n \"The voting age should be lowered to 16\\nThe younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.\",\n \"Voters should be required to take a test before voting\\nSide-resolution- Voting age limit should be dropped if there is voting test. Lack of knowledge is the reason why voting is 18 plus, right? Then why people who don't anything about the candidates allowed to vote? Surely there should be test for voting, and the age limit dropped.\",\n \"lower the voting age to 16\\nVoting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages\",\n \"The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14\\nBecause of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.\",\n \"voting age should be lowered\\nIt's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote? http://www.phillyburbs.com...\",\n \"39. Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States.\\n\\\"A child becomes an adult when he realizes he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong. \\\" Because I agree with these words of Hungarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, and because I figured that out before I was 18, I support the resolution, which states: RESOLVED: Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: LEGAL AGE: the age at which a person acquires full legal rights and responsibilities ADULTHOOD: the state (and responsibilities) of a person who has attained maturity SHOULD: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) REDUCED: brought down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc. (all defined from . http://www.Dictionary.com...) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The \\\"legal age\\\" is the age at which a person in the U. S. receives full legal rights. However, in these fifty nifty states not all rights are acquired on the same birthday. Indeed, if all rights were taken into consideration, the legal age might be 55 (when you can order Senior Citizen Specials at Perkins). But a good portion of these rights (pornography, voting, military, smoking, gambling, etc. ) are officially set at age 18. Therefore, I shall assume that by \\\"the legal age,\\\" the resolution means 18, and I shall concentrate my entire case on the legal rights attained at that age. 2. The resolution does not specify what the new legal age should be, nor does it mandate that the PRO provide a specific new legal age. The debate is only about the merits and drawbacks of a lowered legal age. If the CON requires a specific age, let's just say I advocate moving it from 18 to 16. With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into three points: I: THE LEGAL AGE IS INTENDED AS A SIGN OF MATURITY. Like membership in an exclusive club, the legal age is a criterion which determines the eligibility of a person to receive some right or privilege. Legal age is an imaginary line that separates the men from the boys (or the women from the girls) in regards to a certain right. For example, a six-year-old child probably could not responsibly gamble, but a 32-year-old probably could. By defining the legal age for gambling (and other rights) at 18, the government's goal is to express that a person below that age is immature, while a person above that age is mature (in terms of the right in question). II: THIS STANDARD OF MATURITY IS CONTRADICTORY. Unfortunately, this maturity standard is rife with contradiction. Instead of having a clearly defined standard of what constitutes maturity in terms of age, the government has blurred the imaginary line to the point where it is virtually unrecognizable. There are two reasons for this, which I shall label \\\"A\\\" and \\\"B. \\\" A: The legal age has exceptions. The legal age for joining the military is 18 in general (no pun intended). However, this age does not truly represent a level of maturity, because 17-year-olds can still join the military with parental consent. If the legal age truly measured maturity, this exception would not be allowed. Another exception of the legal age is emancipation. Emancipation is a legal process by which a minor may sever all (or most) ties with their parents. While parental consent is required for students under 18 years of age for many different rights, this criterion is removed when the parents no longer have legal authority over their child. By the defined legal age, emancipated minors would still be considered immature and ineligible for the rights of an 18-year-old, but by the current legal process many of these rights become available. In both of these cases, the legal age fails to assign maturity uniformly. The imaginary line that individuals cross in the process of maturing is lowered in special cases, with no actual test to determine whether the person whom the bar is lowered for is mature enough to handle these rights. This creates a contradiction, and makes the legal age an illegitimate requirement. B: More serious rights have lower levels of maturity than less serious rights. In most states, the legal age for applying for a driver's license is 16, but it ranges from 17 (in New Jersey) to 14 � (in my homeland, the Dakotas). In any case, the legal age for this right is lower than the legal age for most other rights - 18. This is a massive error in judgment. The government assumes that a child is mature enough to handle a moving vehicle (which is rather difficult to learn, and can cause serious injury or death if used improperly) while at the same time immature with regards to voting (which has no dangers associated with it) or purchasing pornography (which, in a legal sense, is equally not dangerous). If we were to administer standards rationally, the legal age for driving would be equal to or higher than the legal age for other rights. All of these contradictions turn the legal age into a meaningless quantitative measure with no legitimacy. When a standard can be bent in special cases, and when the standard incorrectly assigns maturity for different rights, it is no standard at all. It is an antiquated and abused system that has failed its purpose of defining maturity in legal situations. III: THE LEGAL AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO CORRECT THESE CONTRADICTIONS. If the legal age for the rights given at 18 were lowered, we could remove these contradictions and re-establish the legal age as a level which would properly define and regulate maturity. All of these conflicting rights could be established at age 16, perhaps, and no exceptions would be allowed for military enlistment, emancipation, or anything else. The standard set by the government would finally have legitimacy to separate mature from immature and assign rights and responsibilities accordingly. For the above stated reasons, I support the lowering of the legal age.\",\n \"Lowering the voting age\\nLadies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called \\\"kangaroo youth\\\" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, \\\"Get out the Vote\\\" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's \\\"Get out the Vote\\\" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.\",\n \"The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16\\nYoung people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.\",\n \"The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.\\nDefinitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.\",\n \"The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14\\nThe voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on \\\"my side of the fence\\\", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. \\\"The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14.\\\" 2. Compromise. \\\"The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17.\\\" 3. Alternative solution. \\\"Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis.\\\" You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.\",\n \"Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16\\nGive your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?\",\n \"Voting Age\\nI think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)\",\n \"Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17\\nBefore I launch into my arguments, I think it reasonable to provide some context to our Democratic Republic and the purpose of voting. This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves. As indicated, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. In the history of the United States, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as the vote has been expanded to groups that initially could not vote. For example, consider the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. It is time that the liberty and sovereignty embodied by capacity to vote for President be extended to 17 year olds. For what reason could be given to restrict the liberty of 17 year olds. John Locke argued that The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free\\\"(1) The question of this debate is therefore, do 17 year olds possess the capability of reason. I submit that clearly, 17 year olds are as capable as those 18 years old. The difference between the two ages is negligible at best. The law of the land in most respects acknowledges this. Consider 17 year olds pay taxes (2), drive vehicles, be tried as adults for crimes, and can even die for their country serving in the military. (3) It seems arbitrary to submit 17 year olds to all the responsibility of 18 year olds without the power or sovereignty to vote. Until 17 year olds are granted the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military, but being unrepresented in the government to which they are subjected to is tyrannical. My opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. As I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro! Sources (1) . http://www.constitution.org... (2) . https://www.irs.gov... (3) . https://en.wikipedia.org...\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Thanks for this amzing reply. I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems. The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife of wealth. /he was chosen by his smartness. Obama has helped the Millitary (which consist of me) with killing Osama. Previously, our other presidents have been chosen for looks and their wives. Not tryikng to be consulting of our usa presidents, but to be honest, they ahev messed up our money system. Did you know that George Bush spent 11.5 trillion while he was in office??? I think that the ages of 16 would think into smartness. With them thinking about college, they wouldnt be thinking on the looks of these people. This is my report on voting age. Thanks for making this vote so intersing. Resources:http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...","The voting age in the United States should be eliminated \"First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'.\" Great, all the more reason to reduce the representation, so as to encourage more people to stop that form of armed robbery known as \"taxation.\" \"Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair.\" Being a woman or a black has nothing to do with one's qualification to perform the relevant tasks to voting. Being a toddler does. \"Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people.\" The resolution speaks of whether this \"Should\" happen, not whether the Constitution demands it. As such, I shall not bother rebutting this piece of irrelevancy. Young children are clearly subject to influence from their parents, thus, in effect, granting extra votes to parents-- something absurd considering our population issues and the many subsidies parents already get. Since parents of young children are on the whole more likely to support that robbery which is taxes than those people who are not currently parents (given their motive to support government schools), such would have a negative effect on our respect for property rights as well. Should the voting age be altered? Maybe. Eliminated? Surely not.","The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 All people who are learning to drive have more accidents, Regardless of their age. If driving is \"not very complicated\" and only involves \"split-second decisions\" as you say, Then learning how to drive would be easy and not result in so many fatal mistakes. Unlike driving, Voting does not require of the voter any specific knowledge of laws. If as you say \"voting is a long and hard process\" how do you explain that the order in which names are listed on the ballot can help candidates, Going from last to first on the ballot raises a candidate's vote share by 10 percentage points, And if voting is such a \"hard process\" compared to driving, Then why are there driving schools, And driving tests for drivers, But no voting school, Or voting tests for voters? If you treat driving as a trivial task, Then how do you reconcile non-trivial consequences of \"not very complicated\" driving decisions? One person\"s wrong vote can only have indirect and statistically insignificant consequences, But that same person\"s decision to text while driving can have direct and fatal consequences not only for themselves but for many others, Who may not only never get to drive again but never vote again either. The legal age when one is able to live on one's own is called the \"statutory age\" because each state has their own statute that dictates how old a child must be in order to live on their own, It is 18 for only 11 out of 51 states, Including District of Columbia where, Like most other states, The statutory age is 16, Which, I agree with you, Should also be the voting age.","Minimum Voting Age -Speed debate Most adults retain their views from childhood, rather then ever making their own. Hence why most states largely fall red or blue.Any voting age negates the basic rights of citizens of the country. Why should someone be held to the law at all if they cannot have representation?There are 73 million minors in the us how cannot have any say in their own government. https://naeyc.org...","Rights It is a good argument. However, statistically, most 16 year olds are not in the army (as are most adults) and they are not married and/or raising a family. Most of them are also uninformed and generally ambivalent toward the politics, so would not vote anyway Yes, on the face of it, if 16 year olds can \"die for their country\" and \"get married and pay tax\", they should also be allowed to vote. Yet, how informed are their decisions in dying for their country? In getting married and raising a family? Not very. So it would be with the lowering of the voting age. So rather than informing people, we should oppress this group because we don't like them.","Lower the Voting Age I think the basis of your argument is that teenagers should vote because politics affect them. In that case, 5-year-olds should vote and so should non-citizens. Politics affect everyone in America. The reason we don't allow teens to vote is because they are children, they are underage. Why should we allow them to vote but not allow them to smoke or drink alcohol? Because they are not adults. And also, what is the point of your statistic: \"36% of Americans could name all three branches of the government\". It's worse for teens: \"That's according to a new study, which finds a sizable percentage of high school-age Americans don't really know what all the fuss is about today. More than a fifth of the survey respondents didn't know which country we declared our independence from, including 14 percent who thought it was France, not Britain. The survey reported that 15 percent of U.S. teens didn't know the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. Nine percent thought we ratified the Constitution that day. (That didn't happen for another 13 years.)\" http://abcnews.go.com...","Should the voting age be lowered Rebuttals:1) Just because teenagers did not support the historic and monunmental election of God Emperor Donald J. Trump, that does not mean they do not make terrible choices. Moreover, by so many metics, teenagers make poorer decisions than adults. Teenage brains are still developing and, as a consequence, teenagers are more likely to do the following: seek excitement and engage in risk-taking behaviour make choices on impulse focus on short-term gains fail to anticipate consequences of their choices [1] Just last week they were eating tide pods for the love of Thatcher! We should demand more of our voters.2) Adolescents have far less at stake in the political system than adults. If the economy were to tank because of public mismanagement, it would not impact a teenage nearly as much as it would an adult who works fulltime to survive, owns a home, and has capital investments. Moreover, they pay few taxes and cannot be drafted.3) See point 1.Sources:[1] https://tinyurl.com...","Lower the Voting Age \"I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher.\"If the voting age was to be based on brain development, twenty five would be the only age to make sense. However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time.\" While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are \"more liberal\" than their parents and 7% say \"more conservative,\" 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's.\"Over a forth having their own opinions is actually quite good. Regardless, that isn't quite true. \"in the NLSY sample, which looks at child-mother relationships, 51.2 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party identification. The results for the HLS sample, which considered child-mother and child-father relationships, were similar. In that sample, 53.5 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party affiliation, and 54.2 percent did so for their fathers’ identification.\" -http://www.asanet.org...\"They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that.\"Children have free will, and given the right to vote would make their own decisions. If that means shutting out everyone but a few opinions, what difference does that make? Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference.\"Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. \" Who's to say that age is any less arbitrary to deny people on the gender or race? Both were once seen as less intelligent.I thank you for the argument, and conclude.","Consistency It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces. and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can’t they have the opportunity to vote? Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.","Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2","They deserve to have a say. If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections! Yes Because If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed. If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.","Lower the Voting Age I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher. Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed. But even if you don't buy this, teenagers are also more likely to be influenced by their parents. \" While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are \"more liberal\" than their parents and 7% say \"more conservative,\" 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's.\" http://news.gallup.com... Parents have a huge influence on teens. They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that. And since nowadays, people hardly ever fact-check we would have people voting on issues that they did even know the full story about, simply because it is what their mom told them. I do not think non-citizens should be allowed to vote, I am saying that your argument that teenagers are affected by politics thus should get to vote is flimsy. Non-Americans are also affected by politics. Regardless of whether they are American or not is unimportant, the fact is that if you're in a country, the country's policies affect you. Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. \" If even a small amount are actively following politics...they should be able to act on it...\" This applies to non-citizens but they still can't vote, right? The majority of teens are not ready, the few that are will just have to wait till they are older. \"Not everyone lives to age eighteen...\" Well no, but that isn't a reason to change the law.","The lowering of the voting age>>> http://www.bbc.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your \"arguments\" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below. http://en.wikipedia.org... This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing. I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?","Voting Age I would first like to say thank you for the invite. I do not believe that the voting age should be raised to 21. The main reason that I think this is that at age 18 teenagers fully mature into adults, thus giving them many responsibilities,which, in turn, makes them more responsible.","The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 The fundamental parts of driving and voting are very different. Driving is split-second decisions, But not very complicated split-second decisions. Voting is a long and hard process, In terms of the decisions that need to be made. When someone votes, They need to be up to date on the candidate's stances. The legal voting age, Coincidences with the age when most are considered old enough to live on their own (in college). Also, Many states are putting in a graduated licensing program. In Illinois, The program ends, And the driver is allowed to drive without restriction on number of people or curfew (provided they received no traffic convictions) at age 18. (1) The program has been credited with saving many lives of teen drivers. In fact, Drivers 16-17 have two times the amount of fatal crashes per mile driven than drivers 18-19. (2) (1 )http://www. Cyberdriveillinois. Com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl. Html (2) http://www. Iihs. Org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers","the voting age should be lowered to 16. My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus I have won this debate. They have no argument and my case still stands strong.","Lowering the voting age to 16 \"People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.\"This is unfounded and absurd.","Turnout This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn’t. \"Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.\" - Electoral Reform Society","The voting age should be lowered to 14 \"The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care.\" There are also many 14 year olds who do understand the issues. I did when I was 14. Those who don't care probably won't vote anyway. But we should allow those 14 year olds who care to vote. Cognitive development peaks at 14 so they can understand the issues. \"Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does.\" Most 18 year olds don't run households, but are still allowed to vote. Just because you don't have a household doesn't mean issues don't affect you. 14 year olds are affected by things related to medicaid, education/ schools, etc. and should have say in these matters. Some 14 year olds have a job and pay taxes, so they should decide how their money will be spent.","That the voting age should be lowered to 15 My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).","Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. 1. My parents don't vote, even after I showed them why they should vote. So technicality I am not represented plus parents have to munch control over another person's life. I study social studies daily (I want to be a social studies teacher), so if you are saying that I can't vote, that is mistake. I learn from the past. So I and the rest of world can make better decisions in the future. I wish that local and national news everyday, I read newspapers too. If you are saying that I am not inform, thus making me unable to vote , that is just wrong. Teens do it all time with technology,we can access information in seconds how many adults know their senators or reps. Or even the cabinet or all of the issues on a party platform? How many adults know their rights under the bill of rights ? Denying me and countless teens is violates the 14 amendment, we are all to be treat equal over the law. Nations around the world have lower their ages, and their growing support for youth suffrage. Last week, Nancy Pelosi said that she supported the Lowering voting age. I bet you don't even know who she is? She is the head minority leader in the house and former speaker of the house. Due to the number of characters allow, please open these links and consider them part of my argument, http://www.youthrights.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...","That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a “slippery slope” argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the “correct” minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: “To be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. ” Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). “From the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs” [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: “Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future” First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes—this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century “neuroscience” with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior—they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources—what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. “By the end of the high school years, there’s a “high point of agreement” between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are “pretty malleable,” subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. ” [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...","Immature Choices If the voting age is lowered to 16, chavs will be voting. They'll vote for what they think is 'cool' and may vote for BNP or a party like that, without knowing what they are doing or letting pass through in an election for example.","There needs to be a cut off Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.","The voting age should be reduced to 14. Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.","Voting at a lower age would increase participation Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010","Lower the Voting Age I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. \"However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time.\" Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: \"Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed.\" \"Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference.\" This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts","The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 All right. I will change my argument, then. There are about 4,200,000 fourteen-year-olds and many, many more 14-18 year-olds (http://www.marketingcharts.com...). We are currently denying about 16,000,000 Americans the right to vote. Now, some may argue that high-schoolers are too young and ignorant to understand the politics of the U.S., but this is simply not true. In fact, millennials are more involved and concerned with politics than any previous generation of 14-18-year-olds (http://www.usatoday.com...),(http://www.forbes.com...). So, millions of young Americans are being denied the right to vote on the basis that they're too ignorant, while millions more older Americans are voting for the likes of Trump. (Now, dear voters, I know this will bring down the hordes of Trump supporters on this website, so please try to ignore them).","An opportunity for civic studies While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.","You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.","The lowering of the voting age>>> Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.","A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.","That the voting age should be lowered to 15 I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.","The voting age should be lowered to 14 The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care. Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does. Adults understand the issues way more than a 14 year old does.","The voting age should be reduced to 16 The large majority of teenagers who would be voting would at least do some research though. Many adults vote solely based on political party. The fact still remains that 16 year olds are being taxed without representation which is unconstitutional. In order for 16 year olds to be taxed, they need to be able to vote for representatives that represent their interests and they currently cannot do that.","You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Though it is not a problem per say, the idea of 16-year-olds being given the right to vote isn't actually a bad idea. Also, yes, children do look forward to being able to hold power and vote on something - so why not give them that power at a younger age? After all, by then, we do have adult responsibilities so it would be incorrect to say that we are 'too young' to vote at that stage. Furthermore, if we had more 16-year-olds (and, as I assume, 17-year-olds) with this right, the results of our future votes would differentiate and become a lot less conservative. As a result of this, we would be welcoming a much more open and diverse array of people in our society - with higher levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance being an example of a positive impact a lower voting age could give.","Voting at a lower age would increase participation There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action”[1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working.[2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy. [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9","Youth are not represented in politics This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?","The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18 On average 16 year olds are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, but that doesn't mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the other part of society. They aren't at that stage that they would fully understand what things would help our economy and what wouldn't.","The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Good luck and have fun!","voting age should be lowered acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds","The voting age should be reduced to 16 If you can legally work at 16 and be taxed, you should be able to vote. The fact that 16 year olds who are legally working are unable to vote is taxation without representation and is unconstitutional. Many 16 year olds would be more than capable of handling this responsibility.","Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. Okay, so first off, you have 0 solid evidence on why teens should be allowed to vote. Your only reasoning is that teens drive, pay sales tax, pay income tax, and are more informed* then half of voters. These are not warrants on why teens should be allowed to vote. Everyone has to pay sales tax, big deal. Also you claim that adults don't understand our \"democracy\" but \"we\" do, this argument proves that teens have no idea how the USFG works. First off, America is a republic, not a democracy, you also spelled \"does\" wrong, yet you wonder why teens are seen as dumb. The only reason that the voting age is 18 instead of 21, is because people felt that it was unfair to be sent to fight and die for America, but they were unable to vote. Even then, it was because 18 year old people could go to war, however a 16-17 year old cannot. Also teenagers do not understand our political state. Most teens live with their parents, and their political beliefs are based on their parents. So teens shouldn't be able to vote. Lastly, the true \"adult\" age is around 23, because that's when the brain is fully developed. So no, teens should not have the right to vote.","The voting age should be reduced to 14. This resolution will be about the United States. I believe you should be allowed to vote once you turn 14. Another stipulation is that you must also be enrolled in high school or high school equivalence (if home schooled). I will begin my arguments in the next round.","The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting. Also, many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. 15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving. They should not be worrying about politics. Some 15 year olds will be too young to understand! Other ones will not take it seriously! 15 years old is simply too young of a age to start voting. I apologize that my agrument is extremely short-- but it gets all my ideas across well.","The voting age should be reduced to 16 While it's true a 16 year old could easily be swayed, I know many adults who have little to no political and economic knowledge. There are plenty of adults who are extremely ignorant. Why should they vote and not a 16 year old?","We should change the voting age to 15. Heck no. The 1961 Bobo Doll experiment, conducted by Stanford professor Albert Bandura, demonstrated that children will interact with others in the precise manner that was modeled for them by adults. Given this responsibility, many parents try to instruct their children and impart their views, perhaps hoping their kids become carbon copies of themselves, or become the people they wish they were themselves. Parents can get the advantage of their children's voting right and manipulate them to their political view. Then they will vote without having any experience in politics. When your 18, your brain is more developed and choice become more independent. Also, it will cost a lot more if we lowered the voting age to 15, bringing taxes up. The 2016 Election cost 6.8 BILLION dollars, imagine how much more it would cost if there were a whole bunch more people. Plus, most teenagers probably wouldn't care or they don't know who to decide so they don't vote. In 2010, only 21% of 18-24-year-olds voted.","Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45. Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there. No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention. As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting. Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote.","The voting age should be lowered I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts.","There needs to be a cut off This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.","voting age should be lowered kids have read about the government and now the difference between good and bad, they know about government corruption. They have studied history and i argue that they do know who to vote, having a younger age group would help us because they are still is school which would make the votes better for school.","Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today’s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): “The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they’d already done the same.” What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends’? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in “digital gerrymandering,” where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen’s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)","Increase turnout A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age. At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.","The voting age in the United States should be eliminated The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.","Should the voting age be lowered 1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said \"If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers\" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one","Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. That is a biased and ageism view point. We want to be engaged and change the world for the better. Teens can think differently than their parents. All teens think differently than their parents, (I do it all the time). We all are created equal! Is it fair that we don't have a say in what Happens with our taxes or our education. Also a republic is a type of democracy. You are using the same points as the oppressors of allowing African Americans and women the right to vote. We have social studies classes for a reason, so we can be better citizens and humans, and learn from the past. Your argument is unrealistic,that we can say that adults who have no idea about government and the political system but not The youth of America who are have classes about and care. Plus if we lower it we increase voter turnout!","The voting age should be reduced to 14. Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).","Increase turnout The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections. This matters because we don't want to look bad to other contries.","Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!","Lowering the voting age to 16 I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?","The voting age should be reduced to 14. Ignorant, immature, and we can now add irrational. He has made no case for why children should vote. To the contrary, they would simply whine for free goodies, like x-boxes.","Lower the Voting Age You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.","Lowering the voting age to 16 People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.","Drinking Age Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?","The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. But without school teachers a pupil cannot gain information about the left wing parties, what is good/bad about them etc. Or if they were going to vote other than left wing they would gain knowledge of the left wings bad points. I do not agree with your statement that if anything we should raise the voting age to 25 or 30 as young people need a say in our country. At the moment it is mostly only OAP's that get attention as it is mostly them who vote- they get attention on pensions etc.","The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; “16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country’s democracy” as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don’t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.","Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.","The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. 18 gives youngsters more time to gain experience of the world outside of school which is important. School is biased towards Socialist/left wing policies and the effect of this on your rationality at age 16 is important. When people enter the working world they became more aware of how taxes are spent and how much they are having to spend. It would be better to raise it to 25 or maybe 30 in my opinion because of how much your opinions change over time as you are exposed to more of the world. You can't learn so much from school and teachers, there is a saying \"those who can do and those who cant teach\"","The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 :) \"Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. \" Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the \"real world\" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.","It should be lowered not scrapped all together In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway","Lowering the voting age to 16 Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.","Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world!","The voting age should be reduced to 16 No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.","The voting age should be reduced to 14. I did not say kids were too stupid, but too ignorant and immature, which you confirmed. And by limiting voting to landholders, we weed out the ignorant and immature.","Lowering the voting age Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.","The voting age should be reduced to 14. Heck, no! Today's kids are way too immature and ignorant to be trusted with such a privilege. We need to raise the age to 21 and make it so only male landowners can vote. Liberalism will die in one election cycle.","Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.","The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.","The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement","Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is \"the cool one\", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that \"Children would be harder to buy\" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.","Should the voting age be lowered The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)","Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Per rules I waive!","The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.","YES, give them the rights they deserve! First of all, your proposed scheme here poses a practicality problem: who or what, will be deciding on the maturity of 16 years-old voters? How would \"maturity\" be measured? Through tests? If we do let a group of 16 years old vote, and we ban another group of 16 years old from voting, then the problem of injustice will arise. Protests are likely to be sparked. From your argument, it can be seen that your only reason for lowering the voting age to 16 is that \"David Cameron ruined this country\". But it is unfair, if not dangerous, to damage existing voting system and democracy to exercise one group's political views.","Turnout Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.","The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.","Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this \"Sense of justice\", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.","voting age should be lowered I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?"],"string":"[\n \"Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Thanks for this amzing reply. I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems. The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife of wealth. /he was chosen by his smartness. Obama has helped the Millitary (which consist of me) with killing Osama. Previously, our other presidents have been chosen for looks and their wives. Not tryikng to be consulting of our usa presidents, but to be honest, they ahev messed up our money system. Did you know that George Bush spent 11.5 trillion while he was in office??? I think that the ages of 16 would think into smartness. With them thinking about college, they wouldnt be thinking on the looks of these people. This is my report on voting age. Thanks for making this vote so intersing. Resources:http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...\",\n \"The voting age in the United States should be eliminated \\\"First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'.\\\" Great, all the more reason to reduce the representation, so as to encourage more people to stop that form of armed robbery known as \\\"taxation.\\\" \\\"Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair.\\\" Being a woman or a black has nothing to do with one's qualification to perform the relevant tasks to voting. Being a toddler does. \\\"Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people.\\\" The resolution speaks of whether this \\\"Should\\\" happen, not whether the Constitution demands it. As such, I shall not bother rebutting this piece of irrelevancy. Young children are clearly subject to influence from their parents, thus, in effect, granting extra votes to parents-- something absurd considering our population issues and the many subsidies parents already get. Since parents of young children are on the whole more likely to support that robbery which is taxes than those people who are not currently parents (given their motive to support government schools), such would have a negative effect on our respect for property rights as well. Should the voting age be altered? Maybe. Eliminated? Surely not.\",\n \"The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 All people who are learning to drive have more accidents, Regardless of their age. If driving is \\\"not very complicated\\\" and only involves \\\"split-second decisions\\\" as you say, Then learning how to drive would be easy and not result in so many fatal mistakes. Unlike driving, Voting does not require of the voter any specific knowledge of laws. If as you say \\\"voting is a long and hard process\\\" how do you explain that the order in which names are listed on the ballot can help candidates, Going from last to first on the ballot raises a candidate's vote share by 10 percentage points, And if voting is such a \\\"hard process\\\" compared to driving, Then why are there driving schools, And driving tests for drivers, But no voting school, Or voting tests for voters? If you treat driving as a trivial task, Then how do you reconcile non-trivial consequences of \\\"not very complicated\\\" driving decisions? One person\\\"s wrong vote can only have indirect and statistically insignificant consequences, But that same person\\\"s decision to text while driving can have direct and fatal consequences not only for themselves but for many others, Who may not only never get to drive again but never vote again either. The legal age when one is able to live on one's own is called the \\\"statutory age\\\" because each state has their own statute that dictates how old a child must be in order to live on their own, It is 18 for only 11 out of 51 states, Including District of Columbia where, Like most other states, The statutory age is 16, Which, I agree with you, Should also be the voting age.\",\n \"Minimum Voting Age -Speed debate Most adults retain their views from childhood, rather then ever making their own. Hence why most states largely fall red or blue.Any voting age negates the basic rights of citizens of the country. Why should someone be held to the law at all if they cannot have representation?There are 73 million minors in the us how cannot have any say in their own government. https://naeyc.org...\",\n \"Rights It is a good argument. However, statistically, most 16 year olds are not in the army (as are most adults) and they are not married and/or raising a family. Most of them are also uninformed and generally ambivalent toward the politics, so would not vote anyway Yes, on the face of it, if 16 year olds can \\\"die for their country\\\" and \\\"get married and pay tax\\\", they should also be allowed to vote. Yet, how informed are their decisions in dying for their country? In getting married and raising a family? Not very. So it would be with the lowering of the voting age. So rather than informing people, we should oppress this group because we don't like them.\",\n \"Lower the Voting Age I think the basis of your argument is that teenagers should vote because politics affect them. In that case, 5-year-olds should vote and so should non-citizens. Politics affect everyone in America. The reason we don't allow teens to vote is because they are children, they are underage. Why should we allow them to vote but not allow them to smoke or drink alcohol? Because they are not adults. And also, what is the point of your statistic: \\\"36% of Americans could name all three branches of the government\\\". It's worse for teens: \\\"That's according to a new study, which finds a sizable percentage of high school-age Americans don't really know what all the fuss is about today. More than a fifth of the survey respondents didn't know which country we declared our independence from, including 14 percent who thought it was France, not Britain. The survey reported that 15 percent of U.S. teens didn't know the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. Nine percent thought we ratified the Constitution that day. (That didn't happen for another 13 years.)\\\" http://abcnews.go.com...\",\n \"Should the voting age be lowered Rebuttals:1) Just because teenagers did not support the historic and monunmental election of God Emperor Donald J. Trump, that does not mean they do not make terrible choices. Moreover, by so many metics, teenagers make poorer decisions than adults. Teenage brains are still developing and, as a consequence, teenagers are more likely to do the following: seek excitement and engage in risk-taking behaviour make choices on impulse focus on short-term gains fail to anticipate consequences of their choices [1] Just last week they were eating tide pods for the love of Thatcher! We should demand more of our voters.2) Adolescents have far less at stake in the political system than adults. If the economy were to tank because of public mismanagement, it would not impact a teenage nearly as much as it would an adult who works fulltime to survive, owns a home, and has capital investments. Moreover, they pay few taxes and cannot be drafted.3) See point 1.Sources:[1] https://tinyurl.com...\",\n \"Lower the Voting Age \\\"I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher.\\\"If the voting age was to be based on brain development, twenty five would be the only age to make sense. However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time.\\\" While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are \\\"more liberal\\\" than their parents and 7% say \\\"more conservative,\\\" 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's.\\\"Over a forth having their own opinions is actually quite good. Regardless, that isn't quite true. \\\"in the NLSY sample, which looks at child-mother relationships, 51.2 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party identification. The results for the HLS sample, which considered child-mother and child-father relationships, were similar. In that sample, 53.5 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party affiliation, and 54.2 percent did so for their fathers’ identification.\\\" -http://www.asanet.org...\\\"They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that.\\\"Children have free will, and given the right to vote would make their own decisions. If that means shutting out everyone but a few opinions, what difference does that make? Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference.\\\"Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. \\\" Who's to say that age is any less arbitrary to deny people on the gender or race? Both were once seen as less intelligent.I thank you for the argument, and conclude.\",\n \"Consistency It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces. and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can’t they have the opportunity to vote? Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.\",\n \"Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2\",\n \"They deserve to have a say. If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections! Yes Because If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed. If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.\",\n \"Lower the Voting Age I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher. Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed. But even if you don't buy this, teenagers are also more likely to be influenced by their parents. \\\" While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are \\\"more liberal\\\" than their parents and 7% say \\\"more conservative,\\\" 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's.\\\" http://news.gallup.com... Parents have a huge influence on teens. They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that. And since nowadays, people hardly ever fact-check we would have people voting on issues that they did even know the full story about, simply because it is what their mom told them. I do not think non-citizens should be allowed to vote, I am saying that your argument that teenagers are affected by politics thus should get to vote is flimsy. Non-Americans are also affected by politics. Regardless of whether they are American or not is unimportant, the fact is that if you're in a country, the country's policies affect you. Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. \\\" If even a small amount are actively following politics...they should be able to act on it...\\\" This applies to non-citizens but they still can't vote, right? The majority of teens are not ready, the few that are will just have to wait till they are older. \\\"Not everyone lives to age eighteen...\\\" Well no, but that isn't a reason to change the law.\",\n \"The lowering of the voting age>>> http://www.bbc.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your \\\"arguments\\\" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below. http://en.wikipedia.org... This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing. I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?\",\n \"Voting Age I would first like to say thank you for the invite. I do not believe that the voting age should be raised to 21. The main reason that I think this is that at age 18 teenagers fully mature into adults, thus giving them many responsibilities,which, in turn, makes them more responsible.\",\n \"The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 The fundamental parts of driving and voting are very different. Driving is split-second decisions, But not very complicated split-second decisions. Voting is a long and hard process, In terms of the decisions that need to be made. When someone votes, They need to be up to date on the candidate's stances. The legal voting age, Coincidences with the age when most are considered old enough to live on their own (in college). Also, Many states are putting in a graduated licensing program. In Illinois, The program ends, And the driver is allowed to drive without restriction on number of people or curfew (provided they received no traffic convictions) at age 18. (1) The program has been credited with saving many lives of teen drivers. In fact, Drivers 16-17 have two times the amount of fatal crashes per mile driven than drivers 18-19. (2) (1 )http://www. Cyberdriveillinois. Com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl. Html (2) http://www. Iihs. Org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers\",\n \"the voting age should be lowered to 16. My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus I have won this debate. They have no argument and my case still stands strong.\",\n \"Lowering the voting age to 16 \\\"People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.\\\"This is unfounded and absurd.\",\n \"Turnout This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn’t. \\\"Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.\\\" - Electoral Reform Society\",\n \"The voting age should be lowered to 14 \\\"The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care.\\\" There are also many 14 year olds who do understand the issues. I did when I was 14. Those who don't care probably won't vote anyway. But we should allow those 14 year olds who care to vote. Cognitive development peaks at 14 so they can understand the issues. \\\"Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does.\\\" Most 18 year olds don't run households, but are still allowed to vote. Just because you don't have a household doesn't mean issues don't affect you. 14 year olds are affected by things related to medicaid, education/ schools, etc. and should have say in these matters. Some 14 year olds have a job and pay taxes, so they should decide how their money will be spent.\",\n \"That the voting age should be lowered to 15 My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).\",\n \"Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. 1. My parents don't vote, even after I showed them why they should vote. So technicality I am not represented plus parents have to munch control over another person's life. I study social studies daily (I want to be a social studies teacher), so if you are saying that I can't vote, that is mistake. I learn from the past. So I and the rest of world can make better decisions in the future. I wish that local and national news everyday, I read newspapers too. If you are saying that I am not inform, thus making me unable to vote , that is just wrong. Teens do it all time with technology,we can access information in seconds how many adults know their senators or reps. Or even the cabinet or all of the issues on a party platform? How many adults know their rights under the bill of rights ? Denying me and countless teens is violates the 14 amendment, we are all to be treat equal over the law. Nations around the world have lower their ages, and their growing support for youth suffrage. Last week, Nancy Pelosi said that she supported the Lowering voting age. I bet you don't even know who she is? She is the head minority leader in the house and former speaker of the house. Due to the number of characters allow, please open these links and consider them part of my argument, http://www.youthrights.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a “slippery slope” argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the “correct” minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: “To be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. ” Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). “From the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs” [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: “Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future” First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes—this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century “neuroscience” with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior—they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources—what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. “By the end of the high school years, there’s a “high point of agreement” between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are “pretty malleable,” subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. ” [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...\",\n \"Immature Choices If the voting age is lowered to 16, chavs will be voting. They'll vote for what they think is 'cool' and may vote for BNP or a party like that, without knowing what they are doing or letting pass through in an election for example.\",\n \"There needs to be a cut off Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 14. Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.\",\n \"Voting at a lower age would increase participation Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010\",\n \"Lower the Voting Age I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. \\\"However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time.\\\" Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: \\\"Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed.\\\" \\\"Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference.\\\" This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts\",\n \"The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 All right. I will change my argument, then. There are about 4,200,000 fourteen-year-olds and many, many more 14-18 year-olds (http://www.marketingcharts.com...). We are currently denying about 16,000,000 Americans the right to vote. Now, some may argue that high-schoolers are too young and ignorant to understand the politics of the U.S., but this is simply not true. In fact, millennials are more involved and concerned with politics than any previous generation of 14-18-year-olds (http://www.usatoday.com...),(http://www.forbes.com...). So, millions of young Americans are being denied the right to vote on the basis that they're too ignorant, while millions more older Americans are voting for the likes of Trump. (Now, dear voters, I know this will bring down the hordes of Trump supporters on this website, so please try to ignore them).\",\n \"An opportunity for civic studies While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.\",\n \"You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.\",\n \"The lowering of the voting age>>> Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.\",\n \"A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.\",\n \"That the voting age should be lowered to 15 I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.\",\n \"The voting age should be lowered to 14 The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care. Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does. Adults understand the issues way more than a 14 year old does.\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 16 The large majority of teenagers who would be voting would at least do some research though. Many adults vote solely based on political party. The fact still remains that 16 year olds are being taxed without representation which is unconstitutional. In order for 16 year olds to be taxed, they need to be able to vote for representatives that represent their interests and they currently cannot do that.\",\n \"You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Though it is not a problem per say, the idea of 16-year-olds being given the right to vote isn't actually a bad idea. Also, yes, children do look forward to being able to hold power and vote on something - so why not give them that power at a younger age? After all, by then, we do have adult responsibilities so it would be incorrect to say that we are 'too young' to vote at that stage. Furthermore, if we had more 16-year-olds (and, as I assume, 17-year-olds) with this right, the results of our future votes would differentiate and become a lot less conservative. As a result of this, we would be welcoming a much more open and diverse array of people in our society - with higher levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance being an example of a positive impact a lower voting age could give.\",\n \"Voting at a lower age would increase participation There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action”[1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working.[2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy. [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9\",\n \"Youth are not represented in politics This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?\",\n \"The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18 On average 16 year olds are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, but that doesn't mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the other part of society. They aren't at that stage that they would fully understand what things would help our economy and what wouldn't.\",\n \"The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Good luck and have fun!\",\n \"voting age should be lowered acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 16 If you can legally work at 16 and be taxed, you should be able to vote. The fact that 16 year olds who are legally working are unable to vote is taxation without representation and is unconstitutional. Many 16 year olds would be more than capable of handling this responsibility.\",\n \"Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. Okay, so first off, you have 0 solid evidence on why teens should be allowed to vote. Your only reasoning is that teens drive, pay sales tax, pay income tax, and are more informed* then half of voters. These are not warrants on why teens should be allowed to vote. Everyone has to pay sales tax, big deal. Also you claim that adults don't understand our \\\"democracy\\\" but \\\"we\\\" do, this argument proves that teens have no idea how the USFG works. First off, America is a republic, not a democracy, you also spelled \\\"does\\\" wrong, yet you wonder why teens are seen as dumb. The only reason that the voting age is 18 instead of 21, is because people felt that it was unfair to be sent to fight and die for America, but they were unable to vote. Even then, it was because 18 year old people could go to war, however a 16-17 year old cannot. Also teenagers do not understand our political state. Most teens live with their parents, and their political beliefs are based on their parents. So teens shouldn't be able to vote. Lastly, the true \\\"adult\\\" age is around 23, because that's when the brain is fully developed. So no, teens should not have the right to vote.\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 14. This resolution will be about the United States. I believe you should be allowed to vote once you turn 14. Another stipulation is that you must also be enrolled in high school or high school equivalence (if home schooled). I will begin my arguments in the next round.\",\n \"The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting. Also, many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. 15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving. They should not be worrying about politics. Some 15 year olds will be too young to understand! Other ones will not take it seriously! 15 years old is simply too young of a age to start voting. I apologize that my agrument is extremely short-- but it gets all my ideas across well.\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 16 While it's true a 16 year old could easily be swayed, I know many adults who have little to no political and economic knowledge. There are plenty of adults who are extremely ignorant. Why should they vote and not a 16 year old?\",\n \"We should change the voting age to 15. Heck no. The 1961 Bobo Doll experiment, conducted by Stanford professor Albert Bandura, demonstrated that children will interact with others in the precise manner that was modeled for them by adults. Given this responsibility, many parents try to instruct their children and impart their views, perhaps hoping their kids become carbon copies of themselves, or become the people they wish they were themselves. Parents can get the advantage of their children's voting right and manipulate them to their political view. Then they will vote without having any experience in politics. When your 18, your brain is more developed and choice become more independent. Also, it will cost a lot more if we lowered the voting age to 15, bringing taxes up. The 2016 Election cost 6.8 BILLION dollars, imagine how much more it would cost if there were a whole bunch more people. Plus, most teenagers probably wouldn't care or they don't know who to decide so they don't vote. In 2010, only 21% of 18-24-year-olds voted.\",\n \"Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45. Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there. No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention. As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting. Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote.\",\n \"The voting age should be lowered I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts.\",\n \"There needs to be a cut off This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.\",\n \"voting age should be lowered kids have read about the government and now the difference between good and bad, they know about government corruption. They have studied history and i argue that they do know who to vote, having a younger age group would help us because they are still is school which would make the votes better for school.\",\n \"Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today’s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): “The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they’d already done the same.” What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends’? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in “digital gerrymandering,” where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen’s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)\",\n \"Increase turnout A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age. At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.\",\n \"The voting age in the United States should be eliminated The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.\",\n \"Should the voting age be lowered 1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said \\\"If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers\\\" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one\",\n \"Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. That is a biased and ageism view point. We want to be engaged and change the world for the better. Teens can think differently than their parents. All teens think differently than their parents, (I do it all the time). We all are created equal! Is it fair that we don't have a say in what Happens with our taxes or our education. Also a republic is a type of democracy. You are using the same points as the oppressors of allowing African Americans and women the right to vote. We have social studies classes for a reason, so we can be better citizens and humans, and learn from the past. Your argument is unrealistic,that we can say that adults who have no idea about government and the political system but not The youth of America who are have classes about and care. Plus if we lower it we increase voter turnout!\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 14. Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).\",\n \"Increase turnout The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections. This matters because we don't want to look bad to other contries.\",\n \"Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!\",\n \"Lowering the voting age to 16 I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 14. Ignorant, immature, and we can now add irrational. He has made no case for why children should vote. To the contrary, they would simply whine for free goodies, like x-boxes.\",\n \"Lower the Voting Age You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.\",\n \"Lowering the voting age to 16 People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.\",\n \"Drinking Age Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?\",\n \"The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. But without school teachers a pupil cannot gain information about the left wing parties, what is good/bad about them etc. Or if they were going to vote other than left wing they would gain knowledge of the left wings bad points. I do not agree with your statement that if anything we should raise the voting age to 25 or 30 as young people need a say in our country. At the moment it is mostly only OAP's that get attention as it is mostly them who vote- they get attention on pensions etc.\",\n \"The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; “16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country’s democracy” as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don’t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.\",\n \"Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.\",\n \"The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. 18 gives youngsters more time to gain experience of the world outside of school which is important. School is biased towards Socialist/left wing policies and the effect of this on your rationality at age 16 is important. When people enter the working world they became more aware of how taxes are spent and how much they are having to spend. It would be better to raise it to 25 or maybe 30 in my opinion because of how much your opinions change over time as you are exposed to more of the world. You can't learn so much from school and teachers, there is a saying \\\"those who can do and those who cant teach\\\"\",\n \"The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 :) \\\"Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. \\\" Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the \\\"real world\\\" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.\",\n \"It should be lowered not scrapped all together In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway\",\n \"Lowering the voting age to 16 Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.\",\n \"Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world!\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 16 No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 14. I did not say kids were too stupid, but too ignorant and immature, which you confirmed. And by limiting voting to landholders, we weed out the ignorant and immature.\",\n \"Lowering the voting age Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.\",\n \"The voting age should be reduced to 14. Heck, no! Today's kids are way too immature and ignorant to be trusted with such a privilege. We need to raise the age to 21 and make it so only male landowners can vote. Liberalism will die in one election cycle.\",\n \"Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.\",\n \"The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.\",\n \"The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement\",\n \"Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is \\\"the cool one\\\", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that \\\"Children would be harder to buy\\\" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.\",\n \"Should the voting age be lowered The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)\",\n \"Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Per rules I waive!\",\n \"The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.\",\n \"YES, give them the rights they deserve! First of all, your proposed scheme here poses a practicality problem: who or what, will be deciding on the maturity of 16 years-old voters? How would \\\"maturity\\\" be measured? Through tests? If we do let a group of 16 years old vote, and we ban another group of 16 years old from voting, then the problem of injustice will arise. Protests are likely to be sparked. From your argument, it can be seen that your only reason for lowering the voting age to 16 is that \\\"David Cameron ruined this country\\\". But it is unfair, if not dangerous, to damage existing voting system and democracy to exercise one group's political views.\",\n \"Turnout Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.\",\n \"The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.\",\n \"Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this \\\"Sense of justice\\\", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.\",\n \"voting age should be lowered I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":46,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should body cameras be mandatory for police?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Crime cameras\nCrime cameras help restore a public sense of safety","Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.\nI will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the United States as the basis country and governmental system we discuss, as he must agree that it is. Off of his 1 argument: Private is defined as not open or accessible to the general public. My opponent tries to argue the point that a public area no longer becomes public once you put cameras into it. Public as I defined before is open to all persons. So if we put more surveillance cameras in a grocery store, does it become a private venue? No, it does not. It is still accessible to the public, but rather the increase in surveillance cameras will make the public feel safer. Private areas can also certainly have cameras, but that's not the point of this debate. Off of his 2 argument: Look to my third contention where I talk about how this resolution says should happen. I don't have to provide a budgetary plan or show the pragmatics of the situation. But even if I had to compare budgetary plans, his alternative to cameras are security guards which would cost a lot more money than surveillance cameras, and you would have to keep paying them every single year. I will further discuss this in his third and fourth arguments. Off of his 3 argument: The security guards can stop criminals right there, but cameras can also catch them and make sure they don't get away. Do not let this debate round become surveillance cameras against security guards. We are here to discuss surveillance cameras and whether or not they should be substantially increased in public areas. Not whether security guards or surveillance cameras are better. Both are affective, both can stop the rate of crime, and both can potentially insure the three Ss very well. But the obligation of the con is not to bring up other options, cause if that was so he could abuse that by saying we should increase satellite surveillance of people, or bring in the military to protect public areas. Once again, let's stay topical and let's have a discussion about the pros and cons of substantially increasing surveillance cameras in public areas and if it should happen. Off of his 4 argument: Okay, he likes to bring the issue of money, and I don't think it needs to be a huge issue, but if he wants it to be an issue then let's talk about the costs of a security guard to a camera. A good surveillance camera would be two to three thousand dollars. So for example…..a Target wants to increase security in a store. So they can either get two more surveillance cameras for a cost from about four to six thousand dollars or they can hire two security guards for $20 dollars an hour as my opponent said. Let's say a Target is open 6am-11pm. That would be 17 hours, 40 dollars each hour for the two shifts (more than two guys would hold the shifts). In that day alone it would be $680, for a 7 day week, it would be $4760. In nearly a week, the store would have paid the shifts for the security guards as much as they would for a surveillance camera. If he wants to bring up maintenance, then I'll include that, but that would be chump change to the amounts his security guard idea would bring up. The store could install many cameras even before touching the costs of what two shifts at security guard alone would cost. But even beyond the cost, surveillance cameras, will keep criminals off. If a criminal knows that a store is full of surveillance cameras they will be extremely less likely to commit a crime. But once again do not buy his counter-plan because this is not intended to be a comparison between anything he can bring up against surveillance cameras, but rather, once again, a discussion and debate only about surveillance cameras. Now moving on to my side of the debate. Against his attacks on my 1st contention: Safe is defined as dependable or trustworthy. It can also be defined as careful to avoid danger. I do accomplish increasing safe because by installing more surveillance cameras I install something that is dependable or trustworthy. I also, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, do what is careful to avoid danger. It keeps tabs on dangerous people, so that if they do commit acts in these public areas we discuss, they will get caught, and plus by using a surveillance camera you get a sure view of what happened in the crime, thus making it easier to catch, indict, and prosecute a criminal. He may try to bring up security guards again, but still that's not the point of this debate round, it's too discuss surveillance cameras. I think that they indeed SHOULD increase the number of surveillance cameras, because that would accomplish increasing safety, thus I'm doing what is right. Against his attacks on my 2nd contention: I grow tired of his security guard arguments because my obligation is not to prove why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. So I will prove why I do accomplish the three Ss. But I will not tell you why I do it better than security guards, because that is not my obligation. The resolution would have made it an issue if it was, but I do not have to continue comparing surveillance cameras to security guards. I accomplish the three Ss in this way. Safety is accomplished because of what I discussed in the paragraph just before this one, so look to those for how I accomplish safety. Security is accomplished, because security is can be defined as well founded-confidence of one's protection. There is no doubt that surveillance cameras can make one have well-founded confidence of one's protection. I have don't have to compare whether or not security guards do this better or worse, because that is not what the resolution asks. Finally, stability is found on the pro as well. Stability is defined as the state or quality of being stable. I do accomplish being stable because by having a structured system of surveillance cameras I have balanced stability. So because I provide and accomplish the three Ss it is shown that surveillance cameras are beneficial to society, therefore that's why I believe surveillance cameras in public areas, once again, should be substantially increased. Against his attack on my 3rd contention: Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. There is no set number, but the resolution implies that some camera were already in place, so I believe by increasing the number of them, I increase the potential of maintaining the three Ss. Also, pull through the points that he some what rebutted in other spots, that we don't have to discuss economics. It is a SHOULD resolution, not a plans and policy resolution. So in the end, I provide as to why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. I show how I get the three Ss of safety, security, and stability. We are here to debate surveillance cameras, and not security guards. Please do not accept his counter-plan because as I just stated in 3rd contention rebuttal that it is a SHOULD resolution, and not a plans and policy resolution. That is why I can only see a Pro vote at the end of this round","Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\nAs my opponent stated, today\"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be \"fair\". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered \"legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of \"right\" and \"justice\" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of \"justice\". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their \"unjust\" (according to you) punishment.","Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction\nMy opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: \"Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual\" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.","Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\nHello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, \" Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \"fairness\" unto other people. That was my point. \". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current \"fair\" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, \"Why is murder wrong? \", the most common response will be, \"Just because it is wrong\". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?","The philippines should continue the \"Kill on sight if armed\" law against criminals.\nPolice abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.\nToday as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law.\nThanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install \"Nanny Cams\" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have \"felt safe\" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, \"What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?\" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, \"Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment.\" Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the \"many regulations\" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes \"recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends.\" In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, \"If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?\" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.","Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction\nSources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I\"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I\"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don\"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses \"In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information.\" This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don\"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn\"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn\"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren\"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; \"For 12 months, Rialto\"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, \"the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,\" the study team explains.\" https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don\"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. \"In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion.\" The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as \"must arrest\" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We\"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can\"t tell an officer he can\"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim\"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don\"t we replicate that study in real life?","Police Brutality\nHappy debating! Police officers using excessively violent means to deal with criminal and even non-criminal activity is not how the men and women that are supposed to \"Protect and Serve\" us should act. Race and ethnicity impact decisions.1. ) African Americans are assaulted or killed by police more than any other race and, according to Justice on Trial (2000), 70% of traffic stops involved black drivers yet only 17% of traffic crimes were actually committed by blacks. Severe acts toward a group based on race is not justice! Even criminals have Constitutional rights.1. ) Through the 6th Amendment the accused have the right to a fair trial to determine guilt. If officers take it upon themselves to dish out judgement, this right is taken from the accused. Violence breeds violence.1. ) When police use excessive force it causes reason for distrust and rebellion. These feelings lead even the innocent to act out.","Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\nHis refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror. The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were:1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Now onto a new assertion:4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. . http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360° body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant. Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.360° clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water Shock resistant They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only. Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video. Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force.","Should all cops have to wear body cameras\nI think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings","Crime cameras\nCameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.","Crime cameras help deter crime\n\"Facts about Crime cameras and the city of New Orleans\". From the Office of Mayor Nagin - \"These cameras help to identify who is involved with specific crimes and provide a deterrent to those who know the cameras are installed.\"","Should all cops have to wear body cameras\nNo, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.","If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue.\nCameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.","Police Brutality\nThe American ideology is typically peace through strength and this is unfortunate, Police today are gaining brutality charges more & more and honestly if police didn't continue to use brutality then people would stop questioning the officer's judgment, if they ployed in a more peaceful matter then we would be in a more peaceful environment where citizens & authorities","Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty\nI will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: \"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.\" Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.","Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\n* This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today’s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., \"Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. ” The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system “disempowers people of color. ” At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. ” That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. ”\"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The “he did it because he is African American” approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people’s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., \"Knowledge that events are being recorded creates \"self-awareness\" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts—as well as courts of public opinion—should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., \" During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... \"The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed,\" said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. \"However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. \"The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the “he did it” and the “no I did not” approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech."],"string":"[\n \"Crime cameras\\nCrime cameras help restore a public sense of safety\",\n \"Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.\\nI will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the United States as the basis country and governmental system we discuss, as he must agree that it is. Off of his 1 argument: Private is defined as not open or accessible to the general public. My opponent tries to argue the point that a public area no longer becomes public once you put cameras into it. Public as I defined before is open to all persons. So if we put more surveillance cameras in a grocery store, does it become a private venue? No, it does not. It is still accessible to the public, but rather the increase in surveillance cameras will make the public feel safer. Private areas can also certainly have cameras, but that's not the point of this debate. Off of his 2 argument: Look to my third contention where I talk about how this resolution says should happen. I don't have to provide a budgetary plan or show the pragmatics of the situation. But even if I had to compare budgetary plans, his alternative to cameras are security guards which would cost a lot more money than surveillance cameras, and you would have to keep paying them every single year. I will further discuss this in his third and fourth arguments. Off of his 3 argument: The security guards can stop criminals right there, but cameras can also catch them and make sure they don't get away. Do not let this debate round become surveillance cameras against security guards. We are here to discuss surveillance cameras and whether or not they should be substantially increased in public areas. Not whether security guards or surveillance cameras are better. Both are affective, both can stop the rate of crime, and both can potentially insure the three Ss very well. But the obligation of the con is not to bring up other options, cause if that was so he could abuse that by saying we should increase satellite surveillance of people, or bring in the military to protect public areas. Once again, let's stay topical and let's have a discussion about the pros and cons of substantially increasing surveillance cameras in public areas and if it should happen. Off of his 4 argument: Okay, he likes to bring the issue of money, and I don't think it needs to be a huge issue, but if he wants it to be an issue then let's talk about the costs of a security guard to a camera. A good surveillance camera would be two to three thousand dollars. So for example…..a Target wants to increase security in a store. So they can either get two more surveillance cameras for a cost from about four to six thousand dollars or they can hire two security guards for $20 dollars an hour as my opponent said. Let's say a Target is open 6am-11pm. That would be 17 hours, 40 dollars each hour for the two shifts (more than two guys would hold the shifts). In that day alone it would be $680, for a 7 day week, it would be $4760. In nearly a week, the store would have paid the shifts for the security guards as much as they would for a surveillance camera. If he wants to bring up maintenance, then I'll include that, but that would be chump change to the amounts his security guard idea would bring up. The store could install many cameras even before touching the costs of what two shifts at security guard alone would cost. But even beyond the cost, surveillance cameras, will keep criminals off. If a criminal knows that a store is full of surveillance cameras they will be extremely less likely to commit a crime. But once again do not buy his counter-plan because this is not intended to be a comparison between anything he can bring up against surveillance cameras, but rather, once again, a discussion and debate only about surveillance cameras. Now moving on to my side of the debate. Against his attacks on my 1st contention: Safe is defined as dependable or trustworthy. It can also be defined as careful to avoid danger. I do accomplish increasing safe because by installing more surveillance cameras I install something that is dependable or trustworthy. I also, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, do what is careful to avoid danger. It keeps tabs on dangerous people, so that if they do commit acts in these public areas we discuss, they will get caught, and plus by using a surveillance camera you get a sure view of what happened in the crime, thus making it easier to catch, indict, and prosecute a criminal. He may try to bring up security guards again, but still that's not the point of this debate round, it's too discuss surveillance cameras. I think that they indeed SHOULD increase the number of surveillance cameras, because that would accomplish increasing safety, thus I'm doing what is right. Against his attacks on my 2nd contention: I grow tired of his security guard arguments because my obligation is not to prove why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. So I will prove why I do accomplish the three Ss. But I will not tell you why I do it better than security guards, because that is not my obligation. The resolution would have made it an issue if it was, but I do not have to continue comparing surveillance cameras to security guards. I accomplish the three Ss in this way. Safety is accomplished because of what I discussed in the paragraph just before this one, so look to those for how I accomplish safety. Security is accomplished, because security is can be defined as well founded-confidence of one's protection. There is no doubt that surveillance cameras can make one have well-founded confidence of one's protection. I have don't have to compare whether or not security guards do this better or worse, because that is not what the resolution asks. Finally, stability is found on the pro as well. Stability is defined as the state or quality of being stable. I do accomplish being stable because by having a structured system of surveillance cameras I have balanced stability. So because I provide and accomplish the three Ss it is shown that surveillance cameras are beneficial to society, therefore that's why I believe surveillance cameras in public areas, once again, should be substantially increased. Against his attack on my 3rd contention: Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. There is no set number, but the resolution implies that some camera were already in place, so I believe by increasing the number of them, I increase the potential of maintaining the three Ss. Also, pull through the points that he some what rebutted in other spots, that we don't have to discuss economics. It is a SHOULD resolution, not a plans and policy resolution. So in the end, I provide as to why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. I show how I get the three Ss of safety, security, and stability. We are here to debate surveillance cameras, and not security guards. Please do not accept his counter-plan because as I just stated in 3rd contention rebuttal that it is a SHOULD resolution, and not a plans and policy resolution. That is why I can only see a Pro vote at the end of this round\",\n \"Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\\nAs my opponent stated, today\\\"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be \\\"fair\\\". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered \\\"legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of \\\"right\\\" and \\\"justice\\\" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of \\\"justice\\\". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their \\\"unjust\\\" (according to you) punishment.\",\n \"Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction\\nMy opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: \\\"Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual\\\" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.\",\n \"Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\\nHello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing \\\"fairness\\\" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, \\\" Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \\\"fairness\\\" unto other people. That was my point. \\\". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current \\\"fair\\\" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, \\\"Why is murder wrong? \\\", the most common response will be, \\\"Just because it is wrong\\\". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?\",\n \"The philippines should continue the \\\"Kill on sight if armed\\\" law against criminals.\\nPolice abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.\\nToday as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law.\\nThanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install \\\"Nanny Cams\\\" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have \\\"felt safe\\\" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, \\\"What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?\\\" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, \\\"Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment.\\\" Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the \\\"many regulations\\\" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes \\\"recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends.\\\" In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, \\\"If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?\\\" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.\",\n \"Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction\\nSources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I\\\"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I\\\"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don\\\"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses \\\"In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information.\\\" This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don\\\"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn\\\"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn\\\"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren\\\"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; \\\"For 12 months, Rialto\\\"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, \\\"the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,\\\" the study team explains.\\\" https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don\\\"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. \\\"In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion.\\\" The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as \\\"must arrest\\\" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We\\\"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can\\\"t tell an officer he can\\\"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim\\\"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don\\\"t we replicate that study in real life?\",\n \"Police Brutality\\nHappy debating! Police officers using excessively violent means to deal with criminal and even non-criminal activity is not how the men and women that are supposed to \\\"Protect and Serve\\\" us should act. Race and ethnicity impact decisions.1. ) African Americans are assaulted or killed by police more than any other race and, according to Justice on Trial (2000), 70% of traffic stops involved black drivers yet only 17% of traffic crimes were actually committed by blacks. Severe acts toward a group based on race is not justice! Even criminals have Constitutional rights.1. ) Through the 6th Amendment the accused have the right to a fair trial to determine guilt. If officers take it upon themselves to dish out judgement, this right is taken from the accused. Violence breeds violence.1. ) When police use excessive force it causes reason for distrust and rebellion. These feelings lead even the innocent to act out.\",\n \"Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\\nHis refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror. The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were:1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Now onto a new assertion:4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. . http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360° body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant. Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.360° clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water Shock resistant They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only. Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video. Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force.\",\n \"Should all cops have to wear body cameras\\nI think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings\",\n \"Crime cameras\\nCameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.\",\n \"Crime cameras help deter crime\\n\\\"Facts about Crime cameras and the city of New Orleans\\\". From the Office of Mayor Nagin - \\\"These cameras help to identify who is involved with specific crimes and provide a deterrent to those who know the cameras are installed.\\\"\",\n \"Should all cops have to wear body cameras\\nNo, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.\",\n \"If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue.\\nCameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.\",\n \"Police Brutality\\nThe American ideology is typically peace through strength and this is unfortunate, Police today are gaining brutality charges more & more and honestly if police didn't continue to use brutality then people would stop questioning the officer's judgment, if they ployed in a more peaceful matter then we would be in a more peaceful environment where citizens & authorities\",\n \"Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty\\nI will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: \\\"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.\\\" Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.\",\n \"Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras\\n* This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today’s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., \\\"Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. ” The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system “disempowers people of color. ” At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. ” That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. ”\\\"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The “he did it because he is African American” approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people’s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., \\\"Knowledge that events are being recorded creates \\\"self-awareness\\\" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts—as well as courts of public opinion—should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., \\\" During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... \\\"The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed,\\\" said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. \\\"However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. \\\"The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the “he did it” and the “no I did not” approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["Punishments for police misconduct need to be more severe. click=\"document.location='/Weiler/photos/album/2941/19971/'\" src=\"../../../photos/albums/1/3/2941/100192-2941-xqm48-a.jpg\" alt=\"\" />?","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. To start off, I'd like to address Pro's first attack on my \"positions. \" Pro essentially states that police officers are to be scrutinized for every action that they commit by the regular citizen, due in part to the deference they're paid because of their authority, and because that it is a way to keep such police officers accountable. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it leaves much to be desired, because the entire idea that Pro has built her argument on this point, and indeed the entire debate, around, accountability, seems to be a one-way street. The problem with this form of \"accountability\" coming from Joe Citizen is that there is no ability to make them accountable in reverse. Indeed, with today's technology, there is little to no available means except outright illegality to control the use of these devices for recording purposes during police interactions. Why is this important? Because with Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, any where, police are going to be subject to that person's biases, positive or negative, and the fact that such personal media can be transmitted to people everywhere, including to criminal sources which will use such information to their advantage. This is not a random theory, either - criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police[1]. Given the fact that police officers will have no effective ability to keep those with personal recording devices from committing such acts except to stop them on-the-spot, it seems highly questionable to allow Joe Citizen to keep police officers accountable - something I support - when there is no way to keep them accountable if they themselves break the law and jeopardize officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. The second point that Pro contests is the question of whether or not police officers would be hampered by the knowledge that they were being recorded; Pro, obviously, answers that it is an irrelevant question, as officers in such a situation should not have to act outside of their own respective boundaries, and if they do, should be able to justify such actions whether or not they're recorded. A fair, if misguided answer to this important point; the question, however, is not whether the officers can explain themselves in these situations - no doubt they can if their actions are justified - but whether the officers will feel safe to do them at all. Indeed, and my opponent must agree, something that hampers an officer's ability to make quick decisions on their feet is something that should be looked at with a very skeptical eye as to whether or not it should even be there! Fear is a highly motivating factor in every decision a person makes, and officers do not have the security of knowing whether or not their actions will get accolades or boos. Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment. The third point my opponent notes is that she doesn't know the many regulations and restrictions that govern actions that police officers take out on a beat, during operations, and even during their off-duty periods[2]. The majority of officers follow these rules, and the violators out there that don't should be dealt with, I agree. However, how lacking knowledge on police regulations, and pointing out that bad people exist is an argument, I have no idea. The fourth point my opponent addresses is one dear to my heart - citizen journalism. My opponent has wildly misrepresented my position on this, though not necessarily by her own fault - clarity is something that should always come with a statement like the one I made. My entire point of mentioning the citizen journalism aspect of this was the fact that it can be quite easily distorted for uses beyond those of Pro's noble crusade for accountability. I need not explain the fact that America's national media is already biased beyond all belief, especially to a Canadian used to relatively unbiased public broadcasting. Those biases are in fact bred and fed by the opinions of everyday people, and people seek to exploit this. Notably, people like Andrew Breitbart, or those guys who tapped a sitting Senator's phone lines[3], who try and build a career out of it. The point is this: citizen journalism is fine, and I support it, as clearly does my opponent. But citizen journalism has its positives, and its clear negatives - one of them being that information can be easily distorted to not only change contexts and situations, but often maliciously so, for whatever reason. Police officers, who are to remain impartial and trusted among their respective communities as keepers of the peace, are undermined by the actions of quite a few people who hold the view that officers, no matter their intentions, no matter their standing, and no matter their actions, are basically the scourge of the Earth. Officers, who by a large majority follow the rules and regulations of their profession, do not need such people having the ability to do so, without accountability or measure. My opponent's main argument and conclusion is simply as follows: because police officers have authority, and can abuse this authority, citizens should have means of holding to account police officers. Personal recording devices give citizens the means, and should therefore be legally allowed to record during police interactions. And you know what - I agree with her, or at least her sentiment that police officers must be held accountable. That is an obvious no-brainer, and one that is hard to argue against. But the caveat that recording technology is an acceptable means of achieving those ends is, simply put, wrong. My opponent cites cases, and how in the aftermath the evidence that was provided, photographic evidence of bruises, was not sufficient, and how if a recording device were present, and the user could record without any fear of punishment, the evidence would have been sufficient to win the case. However, not only does my opponent not know whether or not it would have made a difference, indeed it's an almost irrelevant point to bring up, as recording devices were not present anyways. Even in a hypothetical situation where devices could have been present, and recording was fully legal, would those recording still not fear some reprisal? If the police officer's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether it was legal or not? Indeed, when you get right down to it, the question isn't whether or not recording the will make a difference, but whether or not the police should have that kind of authority at all. Do not confuse my position with that of someone who is against First Amendment rights, as stipulated in your Constitution - I fully support your ability to think, do, and say what you please. But like any civil right, it is dependent upon your ability to do so without harmful consequences to other individuals and the public at-large. The ability to record police interactions, whether or not it is in a justified situation with clear-cut abuse, is not necessarily a neutral action; while you may be able to punish abusers, you will also punish those who do not. While you may hold police accountable, the police may not be able to hold those with malicious purposes accountable. And while you may think you're doing the community a service, you may in fact be undermining law enforcement's ability to connect and protect the community they're in. Thank you to Lwerd, and I hope to continue this debate further, as I have much more to say! Sources: 1. . http://bit.ly... 2. . http://bit.ly... 3. . http://bit.ly...","Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns. Resolved: The UK's Police force should be issued guns and should carry them routinely. I haven't done a serious debate since I first got in here so I thought I should do three before I go. Rules: This debate should be impossible to accept for now I'll open it later. No forfeiture All arguments must be within the debate, but sources can be put in the comment section if needed. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere No trolling My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to challenge my definitions The BOP is shared First round is acceptance and definitions only. My opponent must argue in R1 but only post constrictive criticism in R4. Good luck Con.","Conceal carry laws by private citizens Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.","Police Should Be Armed Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing ...","Resolved: Governmental implementation of surveillance cameras in public places are beneficial. Introduction: Former Governor of Connecticut Jodi Wells was once quoted in saying, “At the end of the day, the goals are simple: safety and security.” Security and safety are essentials to living a happy, contented life. When individuals feel insecure, problems ensue. A just government should do all they can to ensure a secure and safe life for their citizens. It is because I believe that the goals politician Jodi Wells mentioned are achievable, I affirm the resolution which asks: “Should governments install surveillance cameras in public places?” To begin, I would like to point out a few terms mentioned in the resolution. Governments: The term implies that the ones in power of the country/state/city/etc. are installing these surveillance devices. As the government in the resolution is not specified as federal, it should not be restricted to such. Surveillance Cameras: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines \"surveillance\" as the act of carefully watching someone or something, especially in order to prevent or detect crime. Cameras are obviously going to be a tool used to achieve surveillance. Thus, these cameras' primary purpose will be used as a form of security. Public places: I will once again use Merriam-Webster dictionary to define this term; exposed to general view. As an area where it is obviously going to be exposed to general view, privacy should not be an issue. With this in mind, let us move on to the remainder of the case. Benefits of Surveillance Outweigh Supposed Harms: Security is inevitably achieved for public places. As brought up by politician Jodi Wells, the goals of the government and for people in general includes security. It is a big problem, and we should be concerned about it. Recently, the city of Baltimore installed over 600 surveillance cameras all around the city. The reasoning behind this is simple. In a study taken by NeighborhoodScout, they found that Baltimore was one of the top 20 (18 to be exact) most dangerous cities in the United States. [1] Danger comes in all forms, but one is generally of more prominence--crime. Surveillance cameras, being their primary purpose, would assist in dealing with crime. With crime running rampant, people cannot feel secure in simply going to a public place. When individuals are in fear, they definitely aren’t secure in the power or ability of their government. These cameras can also prove what actually happened, rather than unreliable “eyewitness” accounts. The majority of the time, these accounts aren’t the whole truth. As law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law explains, “People are notoriously bad at observing and remembering exactly what happened.” [2] Either one of two things is the result of such fallible memory: 1) they can’t remember exactly what happened, so they tell the closest to accurate tale they can, or 2) they have the liberty to blatantly lie to law enforcement. Neither result is beneficial to achieving justice in whatever matter is at hand. With surveillance cameras strategically positioned in public areas, they can accurately display the chain of events. People will be secure in knowing that judgment that is due will be given, and any harm caused will be adequately dealt with. Surveillance cameras also have benefits in school settings. They allow students to be physically, mentally, and emotionally safe. School shootings are becoming distressing problems, and many people are worried about the safety of their students. Security cameras can allow teachers and school guards (which many schools now have) to monitor any intruder that may approach the campus. If a suspect becomes aggressive, the school can monitor the actions of the attacker to prevent students from being in harms way. If the students can be mentally and emotionally safe, they will be better able to concentrate on their assignments and increase productivity. Privacy is Not a Valid Argument: The resolution explicitly states that it is referring to public places. If an individual is in a public place, it is reasonable to expect exposure to everyone. By going to a public place, every individual temporarily gives up their right to complete privacy. People (in most scenarios) are already allowed to film in public without requiring explicit consent from other individuals. Surveillance cameras only validate that right on a government level. A common argument against this relates to how the government seems “stalkerish” and how they However, the resolution clearly states that it is referring to a public place. Eugene Volokh once again explains, “These cameras are in public places, where people’s faces and cars are visible to everyone.” People are already going places where ANYONE can see them. That’s more people than would see government surveillance films. Furthermore, the information will only be accessed when needed, not out of leisure or stalking purposes. These surveillance programs simply allow the footage to exist in case a problem needs to be addressed. Even if people think privacy is harmed, the simple fact is that it is not. The security cameras are in public places, and there is always private areas which are not monitored. Problems Remain Unsolved Without Surveillance: Court decisions can only go off of the evidence they have, and from there, their only option would be to trust witness accounts. In practically every case, each witness account contradicts with another in some way, shape, or form. Solvencies for these types of discrepancies are easily discovered by systems of surveillance by the government. Police tickets for running red lights, stop signs, and other traffic related difficulties would be cleared up simply by using surveillance programs. Not only would these unsolved problems be solved, but it would discourage individuals from committing crimes when they feel they have a regulated sense of accountability and punishment for illegal or adverse behavior. There simply is so many benefits and no real arguments as to why we should not have public places under surveillance that the resolution should be affirmed by any just government seeking to protect its citizens. Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and would wish him/her the best of luck!Sources:....................................................................................................................................................................................................[1] http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...[2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu...","Should There Be Security Cameras In Schools Cost \"Do you think all security cameras cost $1000? \"No, I very clearly stated in the first round that they cost from 250 to 1000 dollars depending on quality. \"Oh yeah, every school need giant 3D boards to watch movies. \"You've offered no evidence whatsoever that they are attempting to have 3D boards in every school to watch movies. Your entire case built against smart boards rests on your own personal assertions and nothing more. You have failed to find sources showing that schools are using them for ridiculous reasons such as for spanish classes or watching movies. You have failed to find sources showing that they aren't effective learning devices. Therefore your case against smartboards has crumbled. You have also made little attempt to mask the fact that you are asking schools to spend thousands of dollars to buy expensive and unnecessary security cameras. Security (Armed situations)I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but over 1 million americans have a job in the U. S. armed forces. These employees have assault rifles, fighter jets, tanks, etc all at their place of work. How many of them have gone on homicidal rampages? You can probably only name the Fort Hood Shooting. The fact of the matter is that millions of Americans own guns, are responsible gun owners, and don't start going Rambo on children when they get mad. For this fact you have no reason to stand on the argument that you fear a teacher is going to go on a rampage. I want gun owning teachers to bring their firearms to school for defending the children if need be. Just as I want military personel to use their firearms for defense if need be. To make the argument that we should disarm responsible gun owning teachers who have the purpose of defending their students is as ridiculous as making the argument we should disarm the military who have the purpose of defending U. S. soild as well as U. S. interests abroad. Should we also disarm police officers as well? Think about, police officers carrying guns walk around in public with a pistol in their holster easy for anyone to grab. Just as teachers walk around campus carrying guns in public. Your argument is just as ludicrous. For your reasons against arming teachers, a notion that has become a reality in many U. S. and Israeli schools already, we should disarm the U. S. military as well as Law enforcement. I very clearly stated that teachers who have guns at home should be allowed to bring them. People don't go out buying revolvers to keep where they live if they don't know how to use them. \"In conclusion, my opponent thinks guns can solve all our problems. \"Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed were you explained how security cameras, PHYSICALLY STOPPED GUN WIELDING MANIACS! !! This is a scenario you brought up. You specifically said that we need security cameras to prevent school shootings like Virginia Tech. You make the claim that we need cameras to prevent school shootings, and yet you give no explanation how they will actually stop a school shooting. You know how school shootings end? They end when either the police or the the shooter themself, blows out the brains of the shooter. Either way, guns end school school shootings, not cameras. Security (misc)I was against the idea of spending money hiring security personel, but janitors have the job of keeping school grounds sanitary and administrative personel have the job of running schools. You have yet to prove that they have time to watch security cameras all day while they are already doing the jobs they are paid to do. Your claim that \"The people at the front office could watch the cameras because they're not doing anything half the time! \", is without basis and again, merely assertion. BullyingI'm not asking for children to fight with others that are twice as large. I'm asking them to report misconduct and misbehavior from fellow classmates to administrative personel. It would save schools thousands of dollars and possibly the jobs of other school employees. That is not an unreasonable request. I never said they were wimps, you are putting words in my mouth, I said that it did not make sense that taxpayers should be forced to spend thousands of dollars on cameras when kids being bullied aren't willing to report the bullying. Privacy\"Who said they have to be put in bathrooms\"Anyone with common sence knows that when people conduct illegal activity, they conduct it in privacy. Students don't sell drugs in the principles office, not out on the quad during passing period, etc. Students use and sell drugs in bathrooms were it is private. In order to catch a decent amount of illegal activity, cameras need to be placed in bathrooms, which is a violation of personal privacy. Therefore cameras cannot catch illegal activity. ConclusionMy opponents claims regarding the futility of Smartboards are mere assertions. My opponents claims regarding the laziness of school employees are mere assertionsMy opponent says that cameras won't be placed in school bathrooms, the areas were nearly all illegal activity on school occurs. My opponent thinks it is reasonable to have the taxpayer shell out millions nation wide for security cameras to stop bullying, when children should be reporting it themselves to the school. My opponent has not given any explaination as to how security cameras will stop school shootings while she opposes the presence of firearms on campus. Which, by the way, is becoming a method of preventing school shootings in my already stateded sources. All in all my opponent has not shown that security cameras can catch illegal activity when she doesn't want them planted in the areas where illegal activy occurs, that security camears do a damn thing to prevent school shootings other than simply record the massacre, that security cameras are not a violation of personal privacy and that security camera's are worth the cost when they don't prevent illegal activity and when you need to hire additional personel to monitor them.","Drivers convicted of a DUI should be required to ....full desc inside. While I do think that the idea of a special license plate is quite good, you are being a bit harsh about the other parts. Random stops by the police is a bad idea, especially since you are saying that all of their immediate family would receive the same treatment. That is just wasting the officer's time and that family member's time. Imagine you had a brother who murdered someone. The police found out and made you wear a special badge indicating that YOU were the one to do it, as there is no difference in the badges. So from now on, the police can stop you at any time and say, \"Sorry sir, I'm afraid I have to check your internet history and any items you have on you, just in case you murder someone again\". Do you understand?","Resolved: In a society that values freedom, the police should be abolished Fo shizzle ma dizzle niggerz","Conceal carry laws by private citizens I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.","Weapons in schools So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.","Warning !.... ....oncoming vehicles about stationary mobile accident prevention units, (speed cameras) should not be against the law. Today I was listening to a live (UK) radio phone-in show (BBC Radio 2) debating about the successful conviction of a motorist after being caught flashing oncoming drivers which was adjudged as an attempt to warn them of a stationary mobile speed camera. He was charged and convicted of obstructing a certain WPC whilst on the course of her duties. Various analogies were put forward by listeners in support of and against the action, but due to time restraints of the show nothing was settled, so let's try and settle it now. My position as Pro is pretty straight forward, I will debate the practice of flashing oncoming drivers when they are heading towards a stationary Mobile speed camera should not be against the law, thus not merit a conviction. From the outset (Round one) Con will debate the action does merit a conviction. As this debate is based purely on personal opinion, no party shall carry a burden of proof. Thank you in advance to my opponent for their participation.","Cameras in classrooms I would now like to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Honey, how old are you? Creeper. Things happen in school all the time, just ask teenagers I’m sorry, but I just asked a teenager and they said that this never happens in schools! My opponent has provided no proof that this at all happens in classrooms where teachers are often present. My opponent has not refuted this. This is the exact same as pulling out a gun in front of a police officer. Are you going to do it if you fear being arrested? Of course not! This point has gone completely unrefuted, my opponent has merely said that “this happens”, but has not proved it nor has he provided any evidence to support his blanket claims. The school would not have to worry about money, since Americans will more than likely be paying for it. Seriously? The whole point is that America doesn’t have any money to pay for this. Have you heard about the trillion dollar deficit lately? And you think we’ll have money to pay for $1000 cameras for EVERY classroom when we can’t even keep teachers on the job? Seriously, having teachers getting laid off, has nothing to do with this topic. Yes it does, it shows the complete lack of money in the system. This would be a safer place with cameras and I don’t see why you do not agree with me. Would you want your child going to a place with bulling, drugs, etc. going on without cameras or protection. As I pointed out (with sources and evidence) the cameras in place in schools aren’t supposed to instil a sense of safety. They shouldn’t a child feel safe because there is a camera nearby. Kids aren’t prosecuted if they bully someone in front of a camera. This place would not be safer, this place would lack privacy. Let’s put cameras in the washrooms as sex and drugs might occur there. It makes the place safer! But of course not, because of the massive violation of privacy! Privacy is important too! Whenever I pass this bill in the state of Kentucky Good luck with that. My opponent has provided no substantial evidence, attempted to change his plan, hasn’t refuted my arguments on privacy, cost, and ineffectiveness, and hasn’t responded to my challenge of this bill’s effectiveness in an elementary school.","the police shouldn't be allowed to randomly stop and search people with out any reports of a crime While I agree that is is not ideal to be pulled aside by an officer for a random search, it prevents a lot of crime. In most public schools, police searches happen commonly at random times, when this happens it prevents drug / substance abuse in the classroom and generally in the building. If you pull people aside and acknowledge their rights, then you can prevent a lot of crime, and maybe even save someone from death. But with doing something like this, comes compromise: 1) The police can only random search in certain parts of the city or county and certain buildings. 2) The police official may not use brutal force on the individual, they must be gentle. 3) If an issue occurs during the search, the police cannot charge the man and arrest, they may only take them to the PD and have them stay there for emergency search. 4) If an illegal item such as a firearm or an illegal dose of drugs is found, the item will be confiscated and the individual would be put in the PD and kept there for further questioning. 5) It is not necessary to hold hearings in the court of the law for such results of random searches unless the individual requests so. I'm not saying police should pull over random people solely based on who they are or what they look like, but getting someone body searches (not frisks) set up would be nice. And while we're at it, police should also be on foot patrol more commonly than they do. Most of the time I see any sign of police it would be an empty police car. I wish that by doing this to prevent the rate of crime in most crime-infested counties.","Should Schools Have Better Security well let me start this off right. 1. schools already require a mandatory officer. some schools with worse neighborhoods and increased gang affiliations ex: Chicago do have more security and metal detectors and extra personnel. 2. i can tell you that at my school i have a retired green beret who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and would have no problem absolutely handing our asses to us. 3. most cops are also armed and loaded to take down any such threat (please increase word count)","CCTV cameras should be removed because they destroy the freedom of people CCTV cameras destroy the natural and private freedom of people.","Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. \"All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy.\" The why of the matter is irrelevant. This debate is over the what, which, as you've said, is clearly established by these documents. These laws are also clearly being breached, and said breach is a violation of the rights that are laid out in the aforementioned documents. Therefore, your entire argument this round, which is based on why, not what, is rendered moot. However, because I'm feeling sporting, I'll pick at some of the pieces of your rebuttal. \"If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans?\" For one thing, avoiding humans entirely isn't really practical for the vast majority of people. For another, human eyes don't store in perfect condition data on your whereabouts, activities, appearance, etc. for the uses of a potentially malevolent and definitely corrupt and power-hungry government without your consent and against the law. \"If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.\" I'd like to film you 24/7. Sleeping, eating, on the toilet, everything. If you refuse, according to your logic, something is up with you, and it would be a good idea to have you taped. Also, it is irrelevant what the \"average person suspect[s].\" Democratically-based governments exist to see the wishes of the majority realized as long as they do not infringe on human rights, even if the humans in question are the minority. If the average person thinks that I need to be taped, then the average person can go anally fornicate with a cactus. People being \"very aware and private\" about their decisions is not a bad thing at all, yet you say it like it is one. I apologize for the lukewarm arguments, but I really didn't have to put any effort into them because, as I said, your entire point is invalid.","Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"You can expect any issue that loosely covers the term civil liberties to bring out the masses in San Francisco [...] Yet, thankfully there was one argument that commissioners just couldn’t brush aside. And that is that people who live in and near neighborhoods rife with prostitution, drug-dealing, robberies and frenetic gang acti- vity desperately want surveillance cameras, and the more the better. It’s a cry that’s been heard for some time around town, and given the relatively paltry cost of the equipment. it seems but a trifle to fret over.\"","The government should not bow to public pressure There are, as this debate has shown, many perfectly logical reasons for abolishing speed cameras that have nothing to do with avoiding annoying fines. A democratic government should listen to public opinion about speed cameras, and take all the facts into account; they would find that the cameras are simply not an effective solution to the dangers of motoring.","The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra... The police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be firmly under civilian control, with policy issues such as the carrying of firearms or stop and search policy subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day?","Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. My opponent only brought two arguments to this debate which did not actually support his resolution. He stated that security cameras are not an invasion of privacy because: \"Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. \" These two contentions were not upheld with any empirical evidence so can already be discarded. However even if my opponent had backed up these contentions with evidence, they would not have helped his case. He did not show that even if security cameras helped to \"stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals\" this would not prove that they are any less of an invasion of privacy.","Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy The growing use of security camera in today\"s society has lead to several privacy issues being raised. Nowadays, security cameras are found everywhere. It has affected people\"s life style one way or another. Security camera can evoke negative emotions in people, make them feel like they are being constantly watched and controlled. Although, they are meant to help protect people from crime, there several issues concerning privacy, Thus 23% of people living in the U.S , believed that security cameras violated their right to privacy. As we know, technology has the potential for bad along with the good, total ban of security camera in public places is not a realistic option in today\"s society. However, with adequate regulations, some of the consequences can be reduced.","Having a DNA database should require individual consent The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant threshold'2. Furthermore, the procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to fifteen million Americans and receives approximately seven million queries each day2. The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear. 1 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer: 2 National Crime Information Center. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Federal Bureau of Investigation: improve this","Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety In December, 2008, an armed robbery attempt in New Orleans failed after the victim, according to police, \"...advised the suspect that there were several surveillance cameras in the area,\" and walked safely away from the criminal.[4] The episode suggests that the victim felt that the cameras provided a critical layer of protection against the assailant. While law enforcers did not suggest that others pursue the same course of action as the victim in this story, it is clear that the crime cameras provided a real sense of safety for this man and probably for other members of his community as well.","Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Everything that you just said is irrelevant as to whether public security cameras are an invasion of privacy. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: \"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.\" 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: \"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\"Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: \"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.\" Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 10: \"The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.\" I could go on.","Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Round 2: PRO girr29 (vs) CON whitesoxfan450 I look forward to what should be a great debate and discussion about why surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Before we start this round I would assume my opponent would accept the United States as the governmental system in which we talk about in this debate round. If they would like to make this a bigger issue in his next speech then I will address the issue there. I will first start off by defining three key terms to this debate that come to us from the Unabridged dictionary, from dictionary. com. Surveillance – a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. Public – open to all persons. Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. I reserve the right to define these terms again and any other terms that might become important throughout the rest of the debate round. Let's move to some argumentation. I: To start things off let's go in depth in the true meaning of this resolution. A: Let's first start by talking about the public areas. Public is defined as open to all persons So therefore, there is no invasion of privacy if the government put up some more cameras in the public. So the government will not be hurting any fundamental or human rights by making more surveillance cameras in public. B: Let's look to the surveillance part of the resolution. Surveillance is defined as a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. So the whole point of surveillance cameras are to keep us safer from the ones in public who are suspicious and could potentially commit suspicious acts. So the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us. C: Finally, let's look to the end of the resolution where it says should be substantially increased. That doesn't mean I have to do it, doesn't mean I need to make a plan, all it means is that I just have to agree that…. yes…we should make more surveillance cameras. But furthermore on this substantially is defined as something basic or essential; fundamental. I do believe that is something basic, that is essential, and that it is of course fundamental to improve the protection of the public and it can be done by making more surveillance cameras. II: The resolution affirmed improves the Safety, Security, and Stability of society. A: Safety, Security, and Stability, or as I like to call them, the three Ss, are inherent rights that a society deserves. By increasing the number of cameras in public areas, the three Ss have more potential to stand. That is why I do believe that the resolution should be affirmed because the three Ss should be upheld and that's why we should substantially increase the number of surveillance cameras in public. B: The fewer cameras there are, the higher chance of crime happening. If suspicious characters know there are less surveillance cameras watching them, they will be more willing to commit criminal acts. As a report in the csmonitor talked about in 2007 about surveillance cameras, \"a lot of the time people don't like the fact that big brother is watching them, but the matter of the fact is that big brother keeps us safe. Without someone watching us, this country would be a lot worse off. \" By having more surveillance cameras we truly do what is right for the public. III: A substantial increase SHOULD happen. A: Some arguments that might be brought up in this debate round are that I am trying to implement a plan or trying to make something happen. But that is not the burden of the pro in this round. I believe that all I have to prove is that it should happen. So I don't have to discuss how much money or man hours it would take to make more cameras go up or any real logistics of the situation, just that it should happen. B: The only argumentation that the con can really only bring up is that more surveillance means more watching over us like a big brother. But that shouldn't be a reason to not do something. Just because people don't liked being watched, doesn't mean we sacrifice our all together safety, security, and stability. So at the end of this debate round you have to look at the wording of the resolution. My first contention talks about the wording of the resolution and the importance of that. Then in my second and third I basically bring up the points about how the three Ss are protected on the pro, and that all I have to prove is that this should happen and I don't have to implement a plan.","Speed Cameras Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...","Cameras make a small but valuable contribution to crime fighting. Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"The cameras by themselves are not a crime-solving strategy, but part of an overall network designed to stop criminals before or after the act.\"","Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?","Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy It is one\"s right to walk around public places without worrying that a security camera is recording you. On the subject that security camera deter crime ...well, the millions or so cameras in public places has not stopped crimes. Advocates for security camera argued that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that they are being watched. Well not true, criminals will move to another area where there\"s no camera to commit crimes. Ordinary, law abiding citizens are being filmed every second without their consent. People should not have their every move recorded when all they want to do, is go a mall or walk the street.","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police I hope my opponent is able to make a return","Police Should Be Armed The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra...","Crime camera privacy, Big Brother concerns are exaggerated When new crime cameras are being considered and installed in a city, it is typical that the media, civil rights groups, and skeptical citizens exaggerate the claims regarding the implications for privacy, civil liberties, and for the role of Big Brother. Years after the successful implementation of cameras, and with no privacy incidence or abuses, these initial protests appear for what they are - exaggerations and fear mongering.","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thank you for your quick response, Lwerd. 1. My opponent seems to have missed the point presented; while I make no claims to the contrary that there exists police abuse out there, my point is that giving Joe Citizen a camera may not lead to the proper use of such video as my opponent describes, in a court of law to catch these abusers. Much like the \"nanny cam\" example my opponent gave, unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? Given that nanny cams have also been used to violate privacy in voyeur cases, there clearly is many alternative uses for nanny cames that may not quite fall under my opponent's consent. This is the same issue that comes with recording interactions with the police; what is actually right, and what is blatantly a violation of privacy and protection? 2. My source, if Pro had followed along as intended, was to demonstate the fact that the internet has given criminal networks a completely new tool to affect police operations - nothing more, nothing less. Moving on, the entire idea has been this: the internet, modern mass media, and other things allows people with a certain bias to do what they will with whatever they have, regardless of the consequences it can create. My point has been that police - also people too - are going to be subjected to unnecessary stress caused by videos that scrutinize actions, or just plainly misrepresent the facts, not to mention the privacy concerns, recognized already by courts, for which much of the current laws in place are based on[1]. 3. My opponent forgets that, going with her example, in order to stop many drinking and driving cases, there has been a major campaign, supported by police, to stop inebriated drivers from even getting into a car - stopping the problem before it becomes one, because how do we know they won't kill someone? The same is true with recording the police; without the benefit of hindsight, we don't know what their actions will lead to. My opponent wants to punish those that breach this right; so, like drunk driving, is it not better to stop it before it even happens? I'm not talking about illegalizing recording devices, here, any more than I'd advocate illegalizing alcohol - just that we need to stop a problem, like drunk driving, from occuring before it even happens. 4. Aside from the amusing noting of using Nags as a source, my opponent misses the point. She says police should feel comfortable - they don't. Several officers have testified to this fact[2]. In a study done by a British organization, interviewing police officers who were being recorded by Britain's extensive CCTV system (their own recording system, nonetheless!), the report found \"... When asked whether the introduction of surveillance cameras had affected their work, themajority of police officers interviewed initially responded by stating that the presence of CCTV had not had any impact on the way in which they carried out their duties or exercised their powers.... When pressed on the issue of how CCTV had affected their behaviour on the streets, however, over two-thirds of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol. 10 Some, for example, had heard stories of officers being prosecuted for unlawful arrest or assault on the basis of CCTV evidence, stories that had left them anxious about being watched and the possibility of their own activities being scrutinised. Others, particularly younger officers, found being under constant surveillance made them nervous and uncomfortable.\" The very same report also has officers praising this, and also has officers saying that they're afraid of actions being \"misrepresented,\" apparently a very common concern among officers. Clearly, an issue exists, even if my opponent says it shouldn't. 5(a). My opponent didn't look through my source, then. 5(b). This issue was addressed above; recording, like drinking, may not lead to misrepresentative video or drunk driving, but without benefit of hindsight, we don't know - hence why preventative measures should be in place. 6. Again, above. 7. My opponent should note that I said that with exceptions; recording technology, and the ability to record officers willy-nilly for whatever reason, is not an effective way of keeping police accountable. It can, no doubt about that - and those incidents should be protected under law. But, related to the next point, even if recording has been made illegal, the video survives, as it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed; for those officers truly worried about their actions and being charged, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, as they will try to stop it anyways. 8. My opponent missed the point; the issue is whether or not officers who are truly bent on doing harm would tolerate video recording anyways, whether it was legal or not. The common sense answer is a plain no; if an officer wants to make good on any threat, he will, and would most likely dispose of any video recording, or audio, or whatever, anyways. Under the current laws in place, the recording survives still as evidence of a crime being committed - meaning that, officers doing wrong or right being recorded must maintain the integrity of that recording in order for any charge to come up. Officers wanting to do harm, do not. 9. In conclusion, again, my opponent has not refuted my positions effectively. Recording the police in abusive situations is fantastic - but if its not happening, why should Joe Citizen be able to unnerve officers, misrepresent facts, and have free will to violate officers privacy? It makes little sense, and I urge a vote for CON. Thank you, and good luck in the last round, L. Sources: 1. http://www.citmedialaw.org... 2. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org...","should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance First off before I answer your questions, I am on a debate team and this case is our class case. Now onto your questions. Are tangible benefits measurable? If I understood your question correctly yes there are. If a policy maximizes societal welfare, should it be preserved? It should be preserved yes. If a policy demonstrates the maximization of societal welfare on a utilitarian level, should it be implemented? I believe this is pretty much the same question but yes. Is the destruction of societal welfare and safety advisable? No the destruction of both is not advised. Hypothetically, if you were to commit a crime, would the realization that documented footage of the activity would exist, would it in any way dissuade you from committing the crime? If I were to commit a crime, the demented footage existing would dissuade me from committing the crime. Should tangible benefits carry weight in policy decisions? Yes Should a just government attempt to protect their citizens? Yes because there could be possible terror attacks without anyone knowing. Should a just prioritize citizen protection over potential privacy infringements? No because the government would want the citizens to trust them. Now i pass it off to my opponent.","Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: \"Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade.\"[8]","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police The majority of people that try and record interactions with law enforcement are often times detained and told that they do not have the right to record the police. Whether or not it is illegal has been a heated topic in many debates but the point of this debate is whether or not a law should be enacted and the reasoning why.","Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as \"extra crime-fighting eyes\". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.","someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed) My opponent has given up.","Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries. Jenny Rees. \"City cameras 'don't cut crime'\". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - \"they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments.\"","Security scans of children are not pornographic Arthur Weinreb. \"Full-body scanners; it's just common sense.\" Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: \"Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren’t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing.\"","This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record[1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups[2]. Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights. [1] Accessed from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn258.pdf on 10/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11","CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.","CCTV cameras should be removed because they destroy the freedom of people I accept and I call bullsh*t on the claim that they *destroy* natural private freedom of people.... If anything they are only a temporary and minor inconvenience only once in a while.","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. To begin this debate, I'd like to start by first examining the negative position before segueing into my own. In a recent forum, my opponent has cited 4 reasons for his advocacy in not allowing interaction with police officers to be recorded: 1) Cops will be unnecessarily scrutinized 2) Cops need to react to a situation quickly 3) Cops already have a lot of restrictions 4) Everyone need not be a journalist These are the statements Con should be held accountable for defending [1]. Indeed Con is not the only one to hold this position; many officials have defended laws that prohibit recording cops noting similar reasons of precaution and safety. However the laws prohibiting audio recording are actually eavesdropping and wiretap laws that were designed to protect private conversations. So the question becomes: what is private and what is not? This distinction further becomes unclear when you consider the fact that the government can legally record citizens (so why not the other way around?). Let's look at Con's first point. He notes that the problem of recording is that cops will then be judged for their actions, no matter how justified. Of course I see no problem with this and in fact regard it as a good thing. If a situation arises and a cop reacts in accordance to his or her training, then his action is *justified* and he has no reason to fear this law. Now, Con's response will presumably be that the government uses the same excuse (that only wrong-doers need worry) when justifying the privacy invasion of citizens through cameras and other means. I negate. I contend that the comparison is far from analogous considering the role and authority that police offers have in society compared to regular citizens. For instance, if I walked up to a stranger and asked to see his ID, they would probably look at me and tell me to bugger off. However if a PO made the same request, one would typically surrender their ID and follow any other instructions given. Further, if I were to randomly attack someone in the street, people may attempt to jump in or call the police to rectify the situation. However in an instance where a PO was seen in the same circumstance, people's reaction would be a lot different. My point here is this: If you're going to give someone as much power and authority as POs have, then there should be a lot of checks on that power to ensure no rampant abuse - as history shows us that power tends to manifest \"power trips\" among those with authority [2]. Con's second point was that cops must always be on their toes, and not have to second-guess their actions in life or death situations. However, it logically follows that if one's life was in fact threatened, that reacting accordingly would not warrant any unjust attention or punishment. Due to the risk involved in a profession such as law enforcement, it's reasonable to consider the threats one endures and assess whether or not their reaction was appropriate. Next, Con points out that cops \"already have to worry about restrictions.\" To me this seems a bit comical. Cops are given far more leeway in their authority than almost any other profession (aside from the military or other government agencies). These 'restrictions' are completely unclear to me. In 2006, numerous cops in plain clothes approached Sean Bell and friends in a car, and shot the three of them over 50 times in a matter of seconds [3]. The officers were found not guilty of any crime. In 1999, completely unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by more cops in plain clothes [4]. Again, all officers were found not guilty of any crime. So far history shows us that police can do the most heinous and unjustified things (not necessarily these 2 examples, but in general) and get away with it [2]. So, Con will have to expand on this point and explain to me the \"restrictions\" cops apparently have to worry about, considering they are typically not held accountable for their crimes. Finally, Con asks why \"everyone has to be a journalist\" and report things like this \"whether they're justified or not.\" I'll be frank -- to me this is an absurd question, but one that segues perfectly into the affirmative aspect of this debate. Citizens should be empowered to impose limits on the State by holding them accountable and subject to the same standards of civilians. There are far too many circumstances in which police completely abuse their power and authority! Thanks to recording technology, we have been able to catch a significant number of police acting completely outside their realm of authority to abuse their power and subject citizens to unjust treatment. One site depicts a cop arresting a Burger King employee because he THINKS she gave him the wrong change. The site also shows a cop threatening to ruin this kids life *by making up charges* after pulling this kid over for parking a suspicious vehicle in a commuter lot. You can also watch a cop knee a 70 year old lady in the forehead [5]. Stories of police brutality or other wrongful prejudice and attacks are NOT few and far between. In fact, a quick Google search or perusal of YouTube details millions of cases. I think almost everyone can recount a bad experience with a police officer. The bottom line is this: Because cops have so much power and influence in the legal community, ensuring that they're acting in accordance with the power bestowed upon them is paramount to upholding justice. I previously mentioned a cop threatening to make up false accusations that could literally ruin a young person's life. This is criminal and officers like this need to be caught and punished. The only way to gain proof of these acts is to record it. A \"he said, she said\" situation with a cop usually ALWAYS winds up in the cop's favor, making tangible evidence not only an asset but a requirement if you expect results. Additionally, I noted earlier that these laws were originally derived to protect private conversations. However, if a cop is talking to me, is this a \"private conversation?\" It seems logical that because I am a part of the conversation, that it does not exclude me from said conversation or the rights to said conversation - including recording it. However one Chicago man was arrested and released on 20,000$ bond simply for recording his own arrest [6]. He is being put on trial for an offense which carries with it a 4-15 year jail time penalty. This makes the eavesdropping law completely baseless considering it's not \"eavesdropping\" if one is being directly addressed! Now, considering all of the power an officer has in not only using discretion to determine if an arrest is necessary or not (consider, for example, the Burger King case I mentioned) but the fact that cops can and do assault people in the process of these arrests signifies that recording should be an option when you factor in how many times the events that took place either directly prior to or during the arrest have an impact in the ultimate court case that ensue. When my ex was bludgeoned by officers, the plethora of pictures of her black-and-blued body taken directly after the incident were not enough to incriminate the cops because there was no proof that the bruises were from them. Had evidence been allowed to be submitted (without fear of further punishment), she could have proven her case and had the officers appropriately disciplined. However without permissible evidence, there is no way to get these cops punished. Cops' word always have greater weight. I'm out of characters for now, but I greatly look forward to further proving my case in the upcoming rounds. Back to you, Volkov! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...","administrative efficiency; ensuring justice This argument of course presupposes that we believe the Jean Charles Menezes case was investigated thoroughly. We have known for years that we have a corrupt police force. Stephen Lawrence highlighted the institutional racism which is inherent in our police force and the Menezes case has only served to show society that the police force is nothing more than a band of brothers who protect each others interests. With such a police force, CCTV footage can be tampered with or simply 'lost' in the administrative system. Thus, CCTV footage is merely a helpful tool for the police force, not to society as a whole.","Crime cameras with ID technology deeply violate privacy \"Under the Watchful Eye\". American Civil Liberties Union - \"Threat to Civil Liberties from Combined Technologies Government-run video surveillance can radically alter the relationship between law enforcement and the public. By itself, pervasive video surveillance threatens privacy rights. But even more disturbing, the threat multiplies when government combines cameras with emerging technologies such as automated identification software, face and eye scans, radio frequency identification (RF ID) tags, and databases accessible to law enforcement. In that context, video surveillance provides a critical pillar of a surveillance infrastructure. It creates the potential for the government to monitor people in public space, in a way envisioned only in futuristic novels.\"","Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law Theodore Dalrymple. \"Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence\". City Journal. October 16, 2007 - \"A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter.\"","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: \"Body cameras can help an investigation\" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, \"Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies.\" As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:\"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.\" Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance","Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled \"Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy\", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?","Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Security camera in public places are an invasion of privacy, feeling that your every move is being watched is not a good feeling. People should be free to travel or move a mall, street or a shop without being photograph or recorded. Being constantly watched is like being in jail and ordinary people are losing their freedom because of those security cameras. Another point to consider is, although law enforcement agencies claimed that only criminals should fear security cameras, one must keep in mind that some people have a fear of corrupt authorities who can use information obtain from security camera, in a twisted fashion to victimize others. Although, security cameras in high profile public places are a must, but the need to flood public places with cameras is not such a great idea, as it would cause more problems then it would solve.","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Excellent point I too believe that if people were to go around recording any LEO such as an undercover officer it could have very negative side affects such as aiding a criminal escape. As with any law there are stipulations that go along with the law such as the \"Stand your ground law\" in Florida. You cannot simply run up to someone and start attacking them and then claim you were just defending yourself when its all said and done. A law that would give citizens the right to record interactions with law enforcements should only apply when the officer is the one to start the interaction such as a traffic stop or when an officer comes to your property. Someone recording an undercover officer should be punished for it as the officer has not engaged them. This law would be to protect the citizens from police misconduct and to validate the story of both parties. Cops are already allowed to legally record citizens even without our consent but often times their dashboard cameras don't catch the entire situation leaving gaps in the story. As for exposing traffic patrols this has been a heated debate in Florida for a while now. The people believe that flashing your lights to warn of a speed trap is a form of communication which is protected under the 1st amendment and there are some cops that will not argue that but the majority do.In 2005 a Florida judge ruled that the statute did no make it illegal to warn people of speed traps. These illegal tickets resulted in people paying over 1,042,900 to the state. Everyone should have accountability for their actions LEO included. This is just speed traps, this isn't counting all the other illegal acts that the police commit some of which are physically assaulting people. Recording interactions with law enforcement would force the police to act with proper conduct. Citizens have a right to protect themselves from an abusive law enforcement. There should also be more severe consequences for LEO that are caught in illegal acts. The first video shows the misconduct of the police but the vast majority of these situations go unrecorded. Who can protect us when the ones who are trusted to do so are the ones that threaten us? http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://www.leftlanenews.com...","Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.","Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing them to do more important things, such as solving crimes, maintaining a presence on urban streets, etc. Speed cameras pay for themselves through fines and can even provide financial support for other police work. Studies have found that much more money is saved for the state and society through prevented casualties than is gained in penalties or spent on the cameras. The public can be educated to appreciate this benefit, especially as systems which apply penalty points for speeding offences instead of or as well as fines are clearly not solely motivated by greed.","Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime. Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"There’s no doubt that people with thick rap sheets don’t like them, and they’re the people who are really infringing on our civil liberties.\"","CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: \"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants\" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...","Crime cameras place security over civil liberties. While security interests are important, security cameras wrongly place them over civil liberties. Constitutional principles surrounding civil liberties exist for a reason, and are meant to be immutable. Expediencies such as increased security should not be allowed to bend or break these important moral principles and lines.","Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese said to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2008: \"In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad.\"[5]","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.","Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.","someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed) ..and weren't punished for it. it happens way too much - it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip. they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview. we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this, i can ask them the tough questions. we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up. let's do it","Police should not waste time watching crime cameras It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With citizen recordings, cops are subject to bias. A) Unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? ----> Knowing that they're being recorded acts as a deterrent against police brutality. If an officer knows he's going to be held accountable for his actions, he's far more likely to abide by the law. B) Recording violates privacy ----> There is no violation if they know they're being recorded. It would be obvious to gauge from the tape if they knew they were or not. I would even go so far as to say that hidden cams should be allowed, so long as cops realize they *can possibly* be recorded at any time. However, I don't have to defend that here -- just that recording in general should be permissible. 2. Re: Criminals are using technology to get around police. ----> To re-state exactly what I said in the last round, Con has not presented any evidence that recording cops has or could tamper with police investigations or have detrimental results. How would recording an officer interact with you or another aid criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. If I record a cop talking to me, how is that harming anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. Con has ignored this whole rebuttal and just repeats that people use the internet for crime, which as I said is nothing new, unusual, or even relevant to this discussion. However Con did elaborate (repeat) that police are going to be subject to: A) Bias ----> I've said in the last round, \"Simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. The actions of the officer speak for themselves. Watching a PO threaten someone is not bias; it's a true representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven.\" Instead of responding to these contentions, Con just repeats the fact that officers will be subject to bias completely ignoring my rebuttal explaining contrary. B) Stress caused by videos that misrepresent facts ----> Once again, there's no reason for police to be stressed about possibly being recorded -- especially if the law becomes such that they must know they're being recorded. I've explained how it's easy to prove whether or not a cop was aware of this. Why should they be stressed if they follow protocol, and the tape can verify them acting as such? I've explained that this could be HELPFUL to the cops. Moreover, I've explained in my last point how facts will not be misrepresented and in fact confirmed. C) Privacy concerns ----> I've already explained how this is BS. I notice Con never answered my question about how recording my conversation with a cop violates his right to privacy when in fact he is addressing me... hmm. Also, why is the cops's privacy paramount vs. our right to protect ourself against a monopoly (tyranny) of law enforcement which always favors another officer's word? 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they compromise the law or officer's safety. ----> Once again, I've explained how recording POs will probably not be harmful in any way! Remember that Con never gave us one example of how this could be a bad thing. His only contention, being subject to bias, has been negated and explained how in fact recording can eliminate any hostility toward cops in a questionable situation (unless, of course, they're actually guilty in which case recording would be a good thing!). If not, recording can validate a cop's story. In short though, Con's point about not being able to punish citizens has been negated, and that's probably why he changed the topic. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. ----> Con's source proves my point exactly. He quotes, \"Over 2/3 of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol.\" Great! That's exactly what I want! More careful does not equivocate to less safe or more timid. Again, if they accidentally shoot an unarmed man because they thought he was reaching for a gun while he was really reaching for his wallet, nobody's saying being recorded should stop them from acting on their instincts -- in fact, it would validate their reaction. If they believe they're prone to so many mistakes to the point where this would be a problem, then perhaps law enforcement is not for them (and their authority would not benefit society). If \"being more careful\" translates to being more appropriate, I'm all for it. Con's quote continues to note that some officers were scared because they heard other cops were being prosecuted for unlawful arrest. I think this is perfect! Police should NOT be arresting people unlawfully! This once again validates the point that cops would think twice before acting against society and abusing their power. Also, n00b cops being anxious about this proves absolutely nothing considering n00b cops are going to be anxious no matter what, just as we all are with new jobs and especially when we're being recorded regardless of what that job is. Cops saying things will be \"misrepresented\" is completely false as I've explained. Further, cops being against this is totally irrelevant considering ANYONE would vote against being recorded at a new job. 5A. ----> Con's source is comical. It's titled \"police regulations\" but details more about what being a cop entails (i.e. how to be promoted, maternity pay, issues of retirement, etc.) rather than what cops stress out over from the job. In short, being expected to follow the rules is not a negative added stress. It should be of utmost importance and concern and at the forefront of their conscious while working. 5B. ----> Extend my argument of no possible bias. 6. ----> Extend my point that recording can be used to prove that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7A. ----> First, Con admits that recording can protect people against cop abuse and notes \"those incidents should be protected under law.\" However, if recording is all-together illegal, how can this be protected under law? This is seemingly contradictory. 7B. ----> Con says if recording is illegal, but video survives, \"it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed.\" I'm not sure what he is talking about here; if recording is illegal than this would be considered inadmissible evidence in any court, meaning proof of police brutality via video is 100% irrelevant to the case. In any case, I asked Con to explain what a better way of achieving those ends (catching police) would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. Con never responded to this question and can't in the last round. 8. ----> Con says a dirty cop would simply dispose of recorded evidence. First, he may not know he was being recorded. Second, this is unlikely considering it'd probably be easy to prove and he'd get in even more trouble. 9. ----> In conclusion, I pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence to assume innocent people would be hurt from this, and that indeed it's a minimal risk. Con simply repeats that if the cop is not acting wrongfully, there's no reason for recording him (which ignores my arguments regarding deterrence, protection and citizen's rights). He also restates that facts can be misrepresented (negated) and cops' privacy violated (also negated). If cops are given so much power, we have the right to protect ourself from tyranny of that power - especially if there is no evidence that recording is overtly harmful or unnecessarily hinders cops in any way. On balance, legalized recording provides us the best safety and protection of society's rights while emphasizing more trust and integrity regarding law enforcement and their relationship with society. Thank you.","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police In all those situations a person recording the present situation would have no detrimental affect on the officers except for the press giving a live feed. In that particular situation I could understand restricting their reasoning to restrict the live coverage but I still don't agree with it one hundred percent. The raid you speak of has been the center of much heated debate because of the excessive force being used when a only a de criminalized amount of marijuana was found. The problem with law enforcement being the only ones allowed to record such encounters is that it leaves room for further corruption. For example: The officer recording a raid could be simply looking the other direction when another officer is planting drugs. One side being entrusted with the responsibility of recording such encounters leaves room for corruption. Both the civilian and law enforcement sides should bear the responsibility. It is each sides right to have the means necessary to defend themselves such as in a court of law the defense and prosecution are both represented by attorneys. Law enforcement is here to protect and serve the people so it should be the needs of the people that come first. The people are the ones that need the extra protection for obvious reasons.","Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance. Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Anyone else care to take up this debate?","Police officers should be more friendly I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on \"community policing\". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.","Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.","Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction You will be expected to use evidence and logic to prove your position. Please use acceptable grammar, good structure, and easily identifiable sources (I personally prefer URLs). You will only have 24 hours to make each argument. Clarification of terms: American law enforcement - while it may be of benefit to other nations as well, this debate is only concerned with the current wide spread discussion of this new policy in the United States. A law enforcement officer (which is common abbreviated to LEO) is any public sector employee concerned with enforcing laws. This includes city police officers, county sheriff deputies, state/highway patrol officers, border patrol officers, federal marshals, etc. Body camera - any sort of recording device carried by LEOs. While this specifically means a camera mounted on the officers body, it will also include head mounted cameras for the sake of this debate. We will not be concerned with vehicle cameras. Civilian interaction - This includes traffic stops, initial investigation/questioning, crowd control, or any other instance where LEOs respond to a call or intervene in a situation. We will not be including interactions within police facilities, where it is expect that most areas are already under surveillance. Today, there has been a resounding call to reform police practices. This is the result mostly of the various instances of alleged racially provoked shootings at the hands of police. Many cases result in disappointing verdicts, based on a lack of evidence. A prime example was the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted on the basis of a lack of evidence. Because there was no video evidence, it was difficult for the courts to paint a clear picture of what occurred that night. Even though the shooting was highly suspicious, it would have been near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson wasn't engaging in legitimate self defense. Due to the accessibility of recording equipment in this day and age (thanks to smart phones), some cases have experienced the opposite effect. When Walter Scott was shot in North Charleston, SC by officer Michael Slager, video evidence led to a swift indictment. The question remains why do we not utilize this new technology in full effect. My contentions Protection of the rights of civilians: Simply put, surveilling the actions officers take with civilians holds them to a high standard of professionalism. If an officer knows they are being recorded, they realize they will also be scrutinized for their actions. Many studies have noted the positive effect cameras have on use-of-force trends (I will list three separate studies). All three studies noted a drastic decrease in instances of use-of-force and complaints filed. . http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org...... . http://www.latimes.com...... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Protection of the rights of officers: Police officers are also concerned about faulty complaints and false assumptions about events. Anyone can file a police report, be it justified or not. Police body cameras would provide clarity to the circumstance surrounding the report. Video evidence does not lie: More evidence is better evidence. One common court room dispute is whether or not a detainee was read their Miranda rights before being questioned. According to the supreme court, any evidence obtained through an interrogation of someone who has not been Mirandized is inadmissible in court. Whenever there is a dispute over whether or not the defendant was read the Miranda warning, it often comes do to the officer's word versus their's. With body cameras, it will be easy to show video evidence of an officer reciting the warning or not. This is just one example.","Absolutely! I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.","Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks to Lwerd for broaching this interesting and controversial topic, and one that I'm sure will lead to a fantastic debate. I only have one thing to clarify: I've never stated that it should be completely illegal to record interactions, but that it can present a very dangerous and disruptive thing for law enforcement to handle. I take the position that restrictions are not unreasonable in order to protect both the officer's privacy and law enforcement's integrity, but that to make it completely illegal is more than a tad extreme. There are much easier ways of enforcing these restrictions while maintaining the ability for citizens to record any crimes committed by police officers and have that admitted as evidence in court or to the media. However, if need be, for this argument I will argue for full illegality. Possibly not important, but I certainly believe is, as knowing someone's motivations for arguing for a certain position. So if I seem not to be taking \"farging people taking picture of the cops\" to heart, you'll know why. Another thing to clarify is that I don't have a very large amount of time to devote to DDO during the afternoons this week, but hopefully we can wrap up this debate by Wednesday, when it'll matter. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck!","Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras \"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments\" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: \"Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.\" And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: \"So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \"right\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself.\" Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. \"Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government.\" I did not. Here is exact quote. \" The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair.\" \"What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.\" It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. \"The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished.\" Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. \"Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone.\" They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. \"Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace.\" Which is still a group... thus my point stands. \" It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong.\" FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. \"My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case.\" I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. \"1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system.\" It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as \"lower racial discrimination\". Whether or not their classification of what counts as \"lower racial discrimination\" is objectively correct, is unknown. \"2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force.\" And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police While there do need to be unambiguous protections for citizens exercising the first amendment freedom(press) to record and report police wrongdoing(as well as exceptional conduct), a one size fits all approach to this could compromise police departments' ability to conduct operations. For example, the right to use zoom lenses on police could be critical in rural environments where the police may be executing a warrant hundreds of meters from the closest neighbor. However, this same protection could put the operational security of urban police forces at risk to Organized Crime conducting 'counter-intelligence' by spying through a window into barracks or field command posts. Also, during a hostage incident, even the established press must sometimes be gagged in order to prevent the insurgents from monitoring police activity on the news. Speaking to the efficacy of mandating police record themselves(thoroughly), in 2010 a SWAT officer recorded a raid in Columbia, MO that lead to a controversy surround the shooting of a family dog, over a de-criminalized quantity of marijuana. This video started to open our eyes to the vast over-militarization of our police force, and more a comprehensive protocol requiring this be the standard procedure would be much more rational than a national law allowing anyone to record police, even if they have clear, yet unprovable, malicious intent. Police need to be granted some discretion to judge between the citizen press and a thug taking a record of the officers who may be arresting his friend, for the purposes of retribution.","Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don\"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don\"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see \"Top 20 Drunks\" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don\"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don\"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we\"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. \"My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered.\" Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. \"You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement.\" 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. \"By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie.\" 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, \"I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\" This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. No sources allowed in this debate.","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. \"2. There's already a fund for the body cameras.\" Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. \"3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie.\" Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. \"4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game.\" The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. \"5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?\" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance","Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- \"Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race\" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that \"betting\" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- \"what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. \" With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- \"i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. \" Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.","Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of \"a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering\" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.","A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.","Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don\"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:\"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime,\" states the policy. It adds that, \"(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties.\" http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI\"ll keep this short. There isn\"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven\"t won because I\"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn\"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I\"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses\"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such).\"I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate.\"I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera.\"This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. \"This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?\"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I\"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.","Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.","Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things."],"string":"[\n \"Punishments for police misconduct need to be more severe. click=\\\"document.location='/Weiler/photos/album/2941/19971/'\\\" src=\\\"../../../photos/albums/1/3/2941/100192-2941-xqm48-a.jpg\\\" alt=\\\"\\\" />?\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. To start off, I'd like to address Pro's first attack on my \\\"positions. \\\" Pro essentially states that police officers are to be scrutinized for every action that they commit by the regular citizen, due in part to the deference they're paid because of their authority, and because that it is a way to keep such police officers accountable. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it leaves much to be desired, because the entire idea that Pro has built her argument on this point, and indeed the entire debate, around, accountability, seems to be a one-way street. The problem with this form of \\\"accountability\\\" coming from Joe Citizen is that there is no ability to make them accountable in reverse. Indeed, with today's technology, there is little to no available means except outright illegality to control the use of these devices for recording purposes during police interactions. Why is this important? Because with Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, any where, police are going to be subject to that person's biases, positive or negative, and the fact that such personal media can be transmitted to people everywhere, including to criminal sources which will use such information to their advantage. This is not a random theory, either - criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police[1]. Given the fact that police officers will have no effective ability to keep those with personal recording devices from committing such acts except to stop them on-the-spot, it seems highly questionable to allow Joe Citizen to keep police officers accountable - something I support - when there is no way to keep them accountable if they themselves break the law and jeopardize officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. The second point that Pro contests is the question of whether or not police officers would be hampered by the knowledge that they were being recorded; Pro, obviously, answers that it is an irrelevant question, as officers in such a situation should not have to act outside of their own respective boundaries, and if they do, should be able to justify such actions whether or not they're recorded. A fair, if misguided answer to this important point; the question, however, is not whether the officers can explain themselves in these situations - no doubt they can if their actions are justified - but whether the officers will feel safe to do them at all. Indeed, and my opponent must agree, something that hampers an officer's ability to make quick decisions on their feet is something that should be looked at with a very skeptical eye as to whether or not it should even be there! Fear is a highly motivating factor in every decision a person makes, and officers do not have the security of knowing whether or not their actions will get accolades or boos. Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment. The third point my opponent notes is that she doesn't know the many regulations and restrictions that govern actions that police officers take out on a beat, during operations, and even during their off-duty periods[2]. The majority of officers follow these rules, and the violators out there that don't should be dealt with, I agree. However, how lacking knowledge on police regulations, and pointing out that bad people exist is an argument, I have no idea. The fourth point my opponent addresses is one dear to my heart - citizen journalism. My opponent has wildly misrepresented my position on this, though not necessarily by her own fault - clarity is something that should always come with a statement like the one I made. My entire point of mentioning the citizen journalism aspect of this was the fact that it can be quite easily distorted for uses beyond those of Pro's noble crusade for accountability. I need not explain the fact that America's national media is already biased beyond all belief, especially to a Canadian used to relatively unbiased public broadcasting. Those biases are in fact bred and fed by the opinions of everyday people, and people seek to exploit this. Notably, people like Andrew Breitbart, or those guys who tapped a sitting Senator's phone lines[3], who try and build a career out of it. The point is this: citizen journalism is fine, and I support it, as clearly does my opponent. But citizen journalism has its positives, and its clear negatives - one of them being that information can be easily distorted to not only change contexts and situations, but often maliciously so, for whatever reason. Police officers, who are to remain impartial and trusted among their respective communities as keepers of the peace, are undermined by the actions of quite a few people who hold the view that officers, no matter their intentions, no matter their standing, and no matter their actions, are basically the scourge of the Earth. Officers, who by a large majority follow the rules and regulations of their profession, do not need such people having the ability to do so, without accountability or measure. My opponent's main argument and conclusion is simply as follows: because police officers have authority, and can abuse this authority, citizens should have means of holding to account police officers. Personal recording devices give citizens the means, and should therefore be legally allowed to record during police interactions. And you know what - I agree with her, or at least her sentiment that police officers must be held accountable. That is an obvious no-brainer, and one that is hard to argue against. But the caveat that recording technology is an acceptable means of achieving those ends is, simply put, wrong. My opponent cites cases, and how in the aftermath the evidence that was provided, photographic evidence of bruises, was not sufficient, and how if a recording device were present, and the user could record without any fear of punishment, the evidence would have been sufficient to win the case. However, not only does my opponent not know whether or not it would have made a difference, indeed it's an almost irrelevant point to bring up, as recording devices were not present anyways. Even in a hypothetical situation where devices could have been present, and recording was fully legal, would those recording still not fear some reprisal? If the police officer's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether it was legal or not? Indeed, when you get right down to it, the question isn't whether or not recording the will make a difference, but whether or not the police should have that kind of authority at all. Do not confuse my position with that of someone who is against First Amendment rights, as stipulated in your Constitution - I fully support your ability to think, do, and say what you please. But like any civil right, it is dependent upon your ability to do so without harmful consequences to other individuals and the public at-large. The ability to record police interactions, whether or not it is in a justified situation with clear-cut abuse, is not necessarily a neutral action; while you may be able to punish abusers, you will also punish those who do not. While you may hold police accountable, the police may not be able to hold those with malicious purposes accountable. And while you may think you're doing the community a service, you may in fact be undermining law enforcement's ability to connect and protect the community they're in. Thank you to Lwerd, and I hope to continue this debate further, as I have much more to say! Sources: 1. . http://bit.ly... 2. . http://bit.ly... 3. . http://bit.ly...\",\n \"Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns. Resolved: The UK's Police force should be issued guns and should carry them routinely. I haven't done a serious debate since I first got in here so I thought I should do three before I go. Rules: This debate should be impossible to accept for now I'll open it later. No forfeiture All arguments must be within the debate, but sources can be put in the comment section if needed. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere No trolling My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to challenge my definitions The BOP is shared First round is acceptance and definitions only. My opponent must argue in R1 but only post constrictive criticism in R4. Good luck Con.\",\n \"Conceal carry laws by private citizens Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.\",\n \"Police Should Be Armed Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing ...\",\n \"Resolved: Governmental implementation of surveillance cameras in public places are beneficial. Introduction: Former Governor of Connecticut Jodi Wells was once quoted in saying, “At the end of the day, the goals are simple: safety and security.” Security and safety are essentials to living a happy, contented life. When individuals feel insecure, problems ensue. A just government should do all they can to ensure a secure and safe life for their citizens. It is because I believe that the goals politician Jodi Wells mentioned are achievable, I affirm the resolution which asks: “Should governments install surveillance cameras in public places?” To begin, I would like to point out a few terms mentioned in the resolution. Governments: The term implies that the ones in power of the country/state/city/etc. are installing these surveillance devices. As the government in the resolution is not specified as federal, it should not be restricted to such. Surveillance Cameras: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines \\\"surveillance\\\" as the act of carefully watching someone or something, especially in order to prevent or detect crime. Cameras are obviously going to be a tool used to achieve surveillance. Thus, these cameras' primary purpose will be used as a form of security. Public places: I will once again use Merriam-Webster dictionary to define this term; exposed to general view. As an area where it is obviously going to be exposed to general view, privacy should not be an issue. With this in mind, let us move on to the remainder of the case. Benefits of Surveillance Outweigh Supposed Harms: Security is inevitably achieved for public places. As brought up by politician Jodi Wells, the goals of the government and for people in general includes security. It is a big problem, and we should be concerned about it. Recently, the city of Baltimore installed over 600 surveillance cameras all around the city. The reasoning behind this is simple. In a study taken by NeighborhoodScout, they found that Baltimore was one of the top 20 (18 to be exact) most dangerous cities in the United States. [1] Danger comes in all forms, but one is generally of more prominence--crime. Surveillance cameras, being their primary purpose, would assist in dealing with crime. With crime running rampant, people cannot feel secure in simply going to a public place. When individuals are in fear, they definitely aren’t secure in the power or ability of their government. These cameras can also prove what actually happened, rather than unreliable “eyewitness” accounts. The majority of the time, these accounts aren’t the whole truth. As law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law explains, “People are notoriously bad at observing and remembering exactly what happened.” [2] Either one of two things is the result of such fallible memory: 1) they can’t remember exactly what happened, so they tell the closest to accurate tale they can, or 2) they have the liberty to blatantly lie to law enforcement. Neither result is beneficial to achieving justice in whatever matter is at hand. With surveillance cameras strategically positioned in public areas, they can accurately display the chain of events. People will be secure in knowing that judgment that is due will be given, and any harm caused will be adequately dealt with. Surveillance cameras also have benefits in school settings. They allow students to be physically, mentally, and emotionally safe. School shootings are becoming distressing problems, and many people are worried about the safety of their students. Security cameras can allow teachers and school guards (which many schools now have) to monitor any intruder that may approach the campus. If a suspect becomes aggressive, the school can monitor the actions of the attacker to prevent students from being in harms way. If the students can be mentally and emotionally safe, they will be better able to concentrate on their assignments and increase productivity. Privacy is Not a Valid Argument: The resolution explicitly states that it is referring to public places. If an individual is in a public place, it is reasonable to expect exposure to everyone. By going to a public place, every individual temporarily gives up their right to complete privacy. People (in most scenarios) are already allowed to film in public without requiring explicit consent from other individuals. Surveillance cameras only validate that right on a government level. A common argument against this relates to how the government seems “stalkerish” and how they However, the resolution clearly states that it is referring to a public place. Eugene Volokh once again explains, “These cameras are in public places, where people’s faces and cars are visible to everyone.” People are already going places where ANYONE can see them. That’s more people than would see government surveillance films. Furthermore, the information will only be accessed when needed, not out of leisure or stalking purposes. These surveillance programs simply allow the footage to exist in case a problem needs to be addressed. Even if people think privacy is harmed, the simple fact is that it is not. The security cameras are in public places, and there is always private areas which are not monitored. Problems Remain Unsolved Without Surveillance: Court decisions can only go off of the evidence they have, and from there, their only option would be to trust witness accounts. In practically every case, each witness account contradicts with another in some way, shape, or form. Solvencies for these types of discrepancies are easily discovered by systems of surveillance by the government. Police tickets for running red lights, stop signs, and other traffic related difficulties would be cleared up simply by using surveillance programs. Not only would these unsolved problems be solved, but it would discourage individuals from committing crimes when they feel they have a regulated sense of accountability and punishment for illegal or adverse behavior. There simply is so many benefits and no real arguments as to why we should not have public places under surveillance that the resolution should be affirmed by any just government seeking to protect its citizens. Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and would wish him/her the best of luck!Sources:....................................................................................................................................................................................................[1] http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...[2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu...\",\n \"Should There Be Security Cameras In Schools Cost \\\"Do you think all security cameras cost $1000? \\\"No, I very clearly stated in the first round that they cost from 250 to 1000 dollars depending on quality. \\\"Oh yeah, every school need giant 3D boards to watch movies. \\\"You've offered no evidence whatsoever that they are attempting to have 3D boards in every school to watch movies. Your entire case built against smart boards rests on your own personal assertions and nothing more. You have failed to find sources showing that schools are using them for ridiculous reasons such as for spanish classes or watching movies. You have failed to find sources showing that they aren't effective learning devices. Therefore your case against smartboards has crumbled. You have also made little attempt to mask the fact that you are asking schools to spend thousands of dollars to buy expensive and unnecessary security cameras. Security (Armed situations)I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but over 1 million americans have a job in the U. S. armed forces. These employees have assault rifles, fighter jets, tanks, etc all at their place of work. How many of them have gone on homicidal rampages? You can probably only name the Fort Hood Shooting. The fact of the matter is that millions of Americans own guns, are responsible gun owners, and don't start going Rambo on children when they get mad. For this fact you have no reason to stand on the argument that you fear a teacher is going to go on a rampage. I want gun owning teachers to bring their firearms to school for defending the children if need be. Just as I want military personel to use their firearms for defense if need be. To make the argument that we should disarm responsible gun owning teachers who have the purpose of defending their students is as ridiculous as making the argument we should disarm the military who have the purpose of defending U. S. soild as well as U. S. interests abroad. Should we also disarm police officers as well? Think about, police officers carrying guns walk around in public with a pistol in their holster easy for anyone to grab. Just as teachers walk around campus carrying guns in public. Your argument is just as ludicrous. For your reasons against arming teachers, a notion that has become a reality in many U. S. and Israeli schools already, we should disarm the U. S. military as well as Law enforcement. I very clearly stated that teachers who have guns at home should be allowed to bring them. People don't go out buying revolvers to keep where they live if they don't know how to use them. \\\"In conclusion, my opponent thinks guns can solve all our problems. \\\"Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed were you explained how security cameras, PHYSICALLY STOPPED GUN WIELDING MANIACS! !! This is a scenario you brought up. You specifically said that we need security cameras to prevent school shootings like Virginia Tech. You make the claim that we need cameras to prevent school shootings, and yet you give no explanation how they will actually stop a school shooting. You know how school shootings end? They end when either the police or the the shooter themself, blows out the brains of the shooter. Either way, guns end school school shootings, not cameras. Security (misc)I was against the idea of spending money hiring security personel, but janitors have the job of keeping school grounds sanitary and administrative personel have the job of running schools. You have yet to prove that they have time to watch security cameras all day while they are already doing the jobs they are paid to do. Your claim that \\\"The people at the front office could watch the cameras because they're not doing anything half the time! \\\", is without basis and again, merely assertion. BullyingI'm not asking for children to fight with others that are twice as large. I'm asking them to report misconduct and misbehavior from fellow classmates to administrative personel. It would save schools thousands of dollars and possibly the jobs of other school employees. That is not an unreasonable request. I never said they were wimps, you are putting words in my mouth, I said that it did not make sense that taxpayers should be forced to spend thousands of dollars on cameras when kids being bullied aren't willing to report the bullying. Privacy\\\"Who said they have to be put in bathrooms\\\"Anyone with common sence knows that when people conduct illegal activity, they conduct it in privacy. Students don't sell drugs in the principles office, not out on the quad during passing period, etc. Students use and sell drugs in bathrooms were it is private. In order to catch a decent amount of illegal activity, cameras need to be placed in bathrooms, which is a violation of personal privacy. Therefore cameras cannot catch illegal activity. ConclusionMy opponents claims regarding the futility of Smartboards are mere assertions. My opponents claims regarding the laziness of school employees are mere assertionsMy opponent says that cameras won't be placed in school bathrooms, the areas were nearly all illegal activity on school occurs. My opponent thinks it is reasonable to have the taxpayer shell out millions nation wide for security cameras to stop bullying, when children should be reporting it themselves to the school. My opponent has not given any explaination as to how security cameras will stop school shootings while she opposes the presence of firearms on campus. Which, by the way, is becoming a method of preventing school shootings in my already stateded sources. All in all my opponent has not shown that security cameras can catch illegal activity when she doesn't want them planted in the areas where illegal activy occurs, that security camears do a damn thing to prevent school shootings other than simply record the massacre, that security cameras are not a violation of personal privacy and that security camera's are worth the cost when they don't prevent illegal activity and when you need to hire additional personel to monitor them.\",\n \"Drivers convicted of a DUI should be required to ....full desc inside. While I do think that the idea of a special license plate is quite good, you are being a bit harsh about the other parts. Random stops by the police is a bad idea, especially since you are saying that all of their immediate family would receive the same treatment. That is just wasting the officer's time and that family member's time. Imagine you had a brother who murdered someone. The police found out and made you wear a special badge indicating that YOU were the one to do it, as there is no difference in the badges. So from now on, the police can stop you at any time and say, \\\"Sorry sir, I'm afraid I have to check your internet history and any items you have on you, just in case you murder someone again\\\". Do you understand?\",\n \"Resolved: In a society that values freedom, the police should be abolished Fo shizzle ma dizzle niggerz\",\n \"Conceal carry laws by private citizens I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.\",\n \"Weapons in schools So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.\",\n \"Warning !.... ....oncoming vehicles about stationary mobile accident prevention units, (speed cameras) should not be against the law. Today I was listening to a live (UK) radio phone-in show (BBC Radio 2) debating about the successful conviction of a motorist after being caught flashing oncoming drivers which was adjudged as an attempt to warn them of a stationary mobile speed camera. He was charged and convicted of obstructing a certain WPC whilst on the course of her duties. Various analogies were put forward by listeners in support of and against the action, but due to time restraints of the show nothing was settled, so let's try and settle it now. My position as Pro is pretty straight forward, I will debate the practice of flashing oncoming drivers when they are heading towards a stationary Mobile speed camera should not be against the law, thus not merit a conviction. From the outset (Round one) Con will debate the action does merit a conviction. As this debate is based purely on personal opinion, no party shall carry a burden of proof. Thank you in advance to my opponent for their participation.\",\n \"Cameras in classrooms I would now like to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Honey, how old are you? Creeper. Things happen in school all the time, just ask teenagers I’m sorry, but I just asked a teenager and they said that this never happens in schools! My opponent has provided no proof that this at all happens in classrooms where teachers are often present. My opponent has not refuted this. This is the exact same as pulling out a gun in front of a police officer. Are you going to do it if you fear being arrested? Of course not! This point has gone completely unrefuted, my opponent has merely said that “this happens”, but has not proved it nor has he provided any evidence to support his blanket claims. The school would not have to worry about money, since Americans will more than likely be paying for it. Seriously? The whole point is that America doesn’t have any money to pay for this. Have you heard about the trillion dollar deficit lately? And you think we’ll have money to pay for $1000 cameras for EVERY classroom when we can’t even keep teachers on the job? Seriously, having teachers getting laid off, has nothing to do with this topic. Yes it does, it shows the complete lack of money in the system. This would be a safer place with cameras and I don’t see why you do not agree with me. Would you want your child going to a place with bulling, drugs, etc. going on without cameras or protection. As I pointed out (with sources and evidence) the cameras in place in schools aren’t supposed to instil a sense of safety. They shouldn’t a child feel safe because there is a camera nearby. Kids aren’t prosecuted if they bully someone in front of a camera. This place would not be safer, this place would lack privacy. Let’s put cameras in the washrooms as sex and drugs might occur there. It makes the place safer! But of course not, because of the massive violation of privacy! Privacy is important too! Whenever I pass this bill in the state of Kentucky Good luck with that. My opponent has provided no substantial evidence, attempted to change his plan, hasn’t refuted my arguments on privacy, cost, and ineffectiveness, and hasn’t responded to my challenge of this bill’s effectiveness in an elementary school.\",\n \"the police shouldn't be allowed to randomly stop and search people with out any reports of a crime While I agree that is is not ideal to be pulled aside by an officer for a random search, it prevents a lot of crime. In most public schools, police searches happen commonly at random times, when this happens it prevents drug / substance abuse in the classroom and generally in the building. If you pull people aside and acknowledge their rights, then you can prevent a lot of crime, and maybe even save someone from death. But with doing something like this, comes compromise: 1) The police can only random search in certain parts of the city or county and certain buildings. 2) The police official may not use brutal force on the individual, they must be gentle. 3) If an issue occurs during the search, the police cannot charge the man and arrest, they may only take them to the PD and have them stay there for emergency search. 4) If an illegal item such as a firearm or an illegal dose of drugs is found, the item will be confiscated and the individual would be put in the PD and kept there for further questioning. 5) It is not necessary to hold hearings in the court of the law for such results of random searches unless the individual requests so. I'm not saying police should pull over random people solely based on who they are or what they look like, but getting someone body searches (not frisks) set up would be nice. And while we're at it, police should also be on foot patrol more commonly than they do. Most of the time I see any sign of police it would be an empty police car. I wish that by doing this to prevent the rate of crime in most crime-infested counties.\",\n \"Should Schools Have Better Security well let me start this off right. 1. schools already require a mandatory officer. some schools with worse neighborhoods and increased gang affiliations ex: Chicago do have more security and metal detectors and extra personnel. 2. i can tell you that at my school i have a retired green beret who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and would have no problem absolutely handing our asses to us. 3. most cops are also armed and loaded to take down any such threat (please increase word count)\",\n \"CCTV cameras should be removed because they destroy the freedom of people CCTV cameras destroy the natural and private freedom of people.\",\n \"Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. \\\"All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy.\\\" The why of the matter is irrelevant. This debate is over the what, which, as you've said, is clearly established by these documents. These laws are also clearly being breached, and said breach is a violation of the rights that are laid out in the aforementioned documents. Therefore, your entire argument this round, which is based on why, not what, is rendered moot. However, because I'm feeling sporting, I'll pick at some of the pieces of your rebuttal. \\\"If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans?\\\" For one thing, avoiding humans entirely isn't really practical for the vast majority of people. For another, human eyes don't store in perfect condition data on your whereabouts, activities, appearance, etc. for the uses of a potentially malevolent and definitely corrupt and power-hungry government without your consent and against the law. \\\"If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.\\\" I'd like to film you 24/7. Sleeping, eating, on the toilet, everything. If you refuse, according to your logic, something is up with you, and it would be a good idea to have you taped. Also, it is irrelevant what the \\\"average person suspect[s].\\\" Democratically-based governments exist to see the wishes of the majority realized as long as they do not infringe on human rights, even if the humans in question are the minority. If the average person thinks that I need to be taped, then the average person can go anally fornicate with a cactus. People being \\\"very aware and private\\\" about their decisions is not a bad thing at all, yet you say it like it is one. I apologize for the lukewarm arguments, but I really didn't have to put any effort into them because, as I said, your entire point is invalid.\",\n \"Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras Ken Garcia. \\\"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\\\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \\\"You can expect any issue that loosely covers the term civil liberties to bring out the masses in San Francisco [...] Yet, thankfully there was one argument that commissioners just couldn’t brush aside. And that is that people who live in and near neighborhoods rife with prostitution, drug-dealing, robberies and frenetic gang acti- vity desperately want surveillance cameras, and the more the better. It’s a cry that’s been heard for some time around town, and given the relatively paltry cost of the equipment. it seems but a trifle to fret over.\\\"\",\n \"The government should not bow to public pressure There are, as this debate has shown, many perfectly logical reasons for abolishing speed cameras that have nothing to do with avoiding annoying fines. A democratic government should listen to public opinion about speed cameras, and take all the facts into account; they would find that the cameras are simply not an effective solution to the dangers of motoring.\",\n \"The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra... The police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be firmly under civilian control, with policy issues such as the carrying of firearms or stop and search policy subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day?\",\n \"Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. My opponent only brought two arguments to this debate which did not actually support his resolution. He stated that security cameras are not an invasion of privacy because: \\\"Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. \\\" These two contentions were not upheld with any empirical evidence so can already be discarded. However even if my opponent had backed up these contentions with evidence, they would not have helped his case. He did not show that even if security cameras helped to \\\"stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals\\\" this would not prove that they are any less of an invasion of privacy.\",\n \"Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy The growing use of security camera in today\\\"s society has lead to several privacy issues being raised. Nowadays, security cameras are found everywhere. It has affected people\\\"s life style one way or another. Security camera can evoke negative emotions in people, make them feel like they are being constantly watched and controlled. Although, they are meant to help protect people from crime, there several issues concerning privacy, Thus 23% of people living in the U.S , believed that security cameras violated their right to privacy. As we know, technology has the potential for bad along with the good, total ban of security camera in public places is not a realistic option in today\\\"s society. However, with adequate regulations, some of the consequences can be reduced.\",\n \"Having a DNA database should require individual consent The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant threshold'2. Furthermore, the procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to fifteen million Americans and receives approximately seven million queries each day2. The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear. 1 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer: 2 National Crime Information Center. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Federal Bureau of Investigation: improve this\",\n \"Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety In December, 2008, an armed robbery attempt in New Orleans failed after the victim, according to police, \\\"...advised the suspect that there were several surveillance cameras in the area,\\\" and walked safely away from the criminal.[4] The episode suggests that the victim felt that the cameras provided a critical layer of protection against the assailant. While law enforcers did not suggest that others pursue the same course of action as the victim in this story, it is clear that the crime cameras provided a real sense of safety for this man and probably for other members of his community as well.\",\n \"Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Everything that you just said is irrelevant as to whether public security cameras are an invasion of privacy. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: \\\"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.\\\" 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: \\\"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\\\"Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: \\\"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.\\\" Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 10: \\\"The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.\\\" I could go on.\",\n \"Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Round 2: PRO girr29 (vs) CON whitesoxfan450 I look forward to what should be a great debate and discussion about why surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Before we start this round I would assume my opponent would accept the United States as the governmental system in which we talk about in this debate round. If they would like to make this a bigger issue in his next speech then I will address the issue there. I will first start off by defining three key terms to this debate that come to us from the Unabridged dictionary, from dictionary. com. Surveillance – a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. Public – open to all persons. Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. I reserve the right to define these terms again and any other terms that might become important throughout the rest of the debate round. Let's move to some argumentation. I: To start things off let's go in depth in the true meaning of this resolution. A: Let's first start by talking about the public areas. Public is defined as open to all persons So therefore, there is no invasion of privacy if the government put up some more cameras in the public. So the government will not be hurting any fundamental or human rights by making more surveillance cameras in public. B: Let's look to the surveillance part of the resolution. Surveillance is defined as a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. So the whole point of surveillance cameras are to keep us safer from the ones in public who are suspicious and could potentially commit suspicious acts. So the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us. C: Finally, let's look to the end of the resolution where it says should be substantially increased. That doesn't mean I have to do it, doesn't mean I need to make a plan, all it means is that I just have to agree that…. yes…we should make more surveillance cameras. But furthermore on this substantially is defined as something basic or essential; fundamental. I do believe that is something basic, that is essential, and that it is of course fundamental to improve the protection of the public and it can be done by making more surveillance cameras. II: The resolution affirmed improves the Safety, Security, and Stability of society. A: Safety, Security, and Stability, or as I like to call them, the three Ss, are inherent rights that a society deserves. By increasing the number of cameras in public areas, the three Ss have more potential to stand. That is why I do believe that the resolution should be affirmed because the three Ss should be upheld and that's why we should substantially increase the number of surveillance cameras in public. B: The fewer cameras there are, the higher chance of crime happening. If suspicious characters know there are less surveillance cameras watching them, they will be more willing to commit criminal acts. As a report in the csmonitor talked about in 2007 about surveillance cameras, \\\"a lot of the time people don't like the fact that big brother is watching them, but the matter of the fact is that big brother keeps us safe. Without someone watching us, this country would be a lot worse off. \\\" By having more surveillance cameras we truly do what is right for the public. III: A substantial increase SHOULD happen. A: Some arguments that might be brought up in this debate round are that I am trying to implement a plan or trying to make something happen. But that is not the burden of the pro in this round. I believe that all I have to prove is that it should happen. So I don't have to discuss how much money or man hours it would take to make more cameras go up or any real logistics of the situation, just that it should happen. B: The only argumentation that the con can really only bring up is that more surveillance means more watching over us like a big brother. But that shouldn't be a reason to not do something. Just because people don't liked being watched, doesn't mean we sacrifice our all together safety, security, and stability. So at the end of this debate round you have to look at the wording of the resolution. My first contention talks about the wording of the resolution and the importance of that. Then in my second and third I basically bring up the points about how the three Ss are protected on the pro, and that all I have to prove is that this should happen and I don't have to implement a plan.\",\n \"Speed Cameras Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...\",\n \"Cameras make a small but valuable contribution to crime fighting. Ken Garcia. \\\"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\\\". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \\\"The cameras by themselves are not a crime-solving strategy, but part of an overall network designed to stop criminals before or after the act.\\\"\",\n \"Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?\",\n \"Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy It is one\\\"s right to walk around public places without worrying that a security camera is recording you. On the subject that security camera deter crime ...well, the millions or so cameras in public places has not stopped crimes. Advocates for security camera argued that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that they are being watched. Well not true, criminals will move to another area where there\\\"s no camera to commit crimes. Ordinary, law abiding citizens are being filmed every second without their consent. People should not have their every move recorded when all they want to do, is go a mall or walk the street.\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police I hope my opponent is able to make a return\",\n \"Police Should Be Armed The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra...\",\n \"Crime camera privacy, Big Brother concerns are exaggerated When new crime cameras are being considered and installed in a city, it is typical that the media, civil rights groups, and skeptical citizens exaggerate the claims regarding the implications for privacy, civil liberties, and for the role of Big Brother. Years after the successful implementation of cameras, and with no privacy incidence or abuses, these initial protests appear for what they are - exaggerations and fear mongering.\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thank you for your quick response, Lwerd. 1. My opponent seems to have missed the point presented; while I make no claims to the contrary that there exists police abuse out there, my point is that giving Joe Citizen a camera may not lead to the proper use of such video as my opponent describes, in a court of law to catch these abusers. Much like the \\\"nanny cam\\\" example my opponent gave, unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? Given that nanny cams have also been used to violate privacy in voyeur cases, there clearly is many alternative uses for nanny cames that may not quite fall under my opponent's consent. This is the same issue that comes with recording interactions with the police; what is actually right, and what is blatantly a violation of privacy and protection? 2. My source, if Pro had followed along as intended, was to demonstate the fact that the internet has given criminal networks a completely new tool to affect police operations - nothing more, nothing less. Moving on, the entire idea has been this: the internet, modern mass media, and other things allows people with a certain bias to do what they will with whatever they have, regardless of the consequences it can create. My point has been that police - also people too - are going to be subjected to unnecessary stress caused by videos that scrutinize actions, or just plainly misrepresent the facts, not to mention the privacy concerns, recognized already by courts, for which much of the current laws in place are based on[1]. 3. My opponent forgets that, going with her example, in order to stop many drinking and driving cases, there has been a major campaign, supported by police, to stop inebriated drivers from even getting into a car - stopping the problem before it becomes one, because how do we know they won't kill someone? The same is true with recording the police; without the benefit of hindsight, we don't know what their actions will lead to. My opponent wants to punish those that breach this right; so, like drunk driving, is it not better to stop it before it even happens? I'm not talking about illegalizing recording devices, here, any more than I'd advocate illegalizing alcohol - just that we need to stop a problem, like drunk driving, from occuring before it even happens. 4. Aside from the amusing noting of using Nags as a source, my opponent misses the point. She says police should feel comfortable - they don't. Several officers have testified to this fact[2]. In a study done by a British organization, interviewing police officers who were being recorded by Britain's extensive CCTV system (their own recording system, nonetheless!), the report found \\\"... When asked whether the introduction of surveillance cameras had affected their work, themajority of police officers interviewed initially responded by stating that the presence of CCTV had not had any impact on the way in which they carried out their duties or exercised their powers.... When pressed on the issue of how CCTV had affected their behaviour on the streets, however, over two-thirds of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol. 10 Some, for example, had heard stories of officers being prosecuted for unlawful arrest or assault on the basis of CCTV evidence, stories that had left them anxious about being watched and the possibility of their own activities being scrutinised. Others, particularly younger officers, found being under constant surveillance made them nervous and uncomfortable.\\\" The very same report also has officers praising this, and also has officers saying that they're afraid of actions being \\\"misrepresented,\\\" apparently a very common concern among officers. Clearly, an issue exists, even if my opponent says it shouldn't. 5(a). My opponent didn't look through my source, then. 5(b). This issue was addressed above; recording, like drinking, may not lead to misrepresentative video or drunk driving, but without benefit of hindsight, we don't know - hence why preventative measures should be in place. 6. Again, above. 7. My opponent should note that I said that with exceptions; recording technology, and the ability to record officers willy-nilly for whatever reason, is not an effective way of keeping police accountable. It can, no doubt about that - and those incidents should be protected under law. But, related to the next point, even if recording has been made illegal, the video survives, as it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed; for those officers truly worried about their actions and being charged, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, as they will try to stop it anyways. 8. My opponent missed the point; the issue is whether or not officers who are truly bent on doing harm would tolerate video recording anyways, whether it was legal or not. The common sense answer is a plain no; if an officer wants to make good on any threat, he will, and would most likely dispose of any video recording, or audio, or whatever, anyways. Under the current laws in place, the recording survives still as evidence of a crime being committed - meaning that, officers doing wrong or right being recorded must maintain the integrity of that recording in order for any charge to come up. Officers wanting to do harm, do not. 9. In conclusion, again, my opponent has not refuted my positions effectively. Recording the police in abusive situations is fantastic - but if its not happening, why should Joe Citizen be able to unnerve officers, misrepresent facts, and have free will to violate officers privacy? It makes little sense, and I urge a vote for CON. Thank you, and good luck in the last round, L. Sources: 1. http://www.citmedialaw.org... 2. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org...\",\n \"should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance First off before I answer your questions, I am on a debate team and this case is our class case. Now onto your questions. Are tangible benefits measurable? If I understood your question correctly yes there are. If a policy maximizes societal welfare, should it be preserved? It should be preserved yes. If a policy demonstrates the maximization of societal welfare on a utilitarian level, should it be implemented? I believe this is pretty much the same question but yes. Is the destruction of societal welfare and safety advisable? No the destruction of both is not advised. Hypothetically, if you were to commit a crime, would the realization that documented footage of the activity would exist, would it in any way dissuade you from committing the crime? If I were to commit a crime, the demented footage existing would dissuade me from committing the crime. Should tangible benefits carry weight in policy decisions? Yes Should a just government attempt to protect their citizens? Yes because there could be possible terror attacks without anyone knowing. Should a just prioritize citizen protection over potential privacy infringements? No because the government would want the citizens to trust them. Now i pass it off to my opponent.\",\n \"Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: \\\"Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade.\\\"[8]\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police The majority of people that try and record interactions with law enforcement are often times detained and told that they do not have the right to record the police. Whether or not it is illegal has been a heated topic in many debates but the point of this debate is whether or not a law should be enacted and the reasoning why.\",\n \"Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as \\\"extra crime-fighting eyes\\\". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.\",\n \"someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed) My opponent has given up.\",\n \"Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries. Jenny Rees. \\\"City cameras 'don't cut crime'\\\". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - \\\"they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments.\\\"\",\n \"Security scans of children are not pornographic Arthur Weinreb. \\\"Full-body scanners; it's just common sense.\\\" Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: \\\"Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren’t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing.\\\"\",\n \"This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record[1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups[2]. Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights. [1] Accessed from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn258.pdf on 10/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11\",\n \"CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.\",\n \"CCTV cameras should be removed because they destroy the freedom of people I accept and I call bullsh*t on the claim that they *destroy* natural private freedom of people.... If anything they are only a temporary and minor inconvenience only once in a while.\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. To begin this debate, I'd like to start by first examining the negative position before segueing into my own. In a recent forum, my opponent has cited 4 reasons for his advocacy in not allowing interaction with police officers to be recorded: 1) Cops will be unnecessarily scrutinized 2) Cops need to react to a situation quickly 3) Cops already have a lot of restrictions 4) Everyone need not be a journalist These are the statements Con should be held accountable for defending [1]. Indeed Con is not the only one to hold this position; many officials have defended laws that prohibit recording cops noting similar reasons of precaution and safety. However the laws prohibiting audio recording are actually eavesdropping and wiretap laws that were designed to protect private conversations. So the question becomes: what is private and what is not? This distinction further becomes unclear when you consider the fact that the government can legally record citizens (so why not the other way around?). Let's look at Con's first point. He notes that the problem of recording is that cops will then be judged for their actions, no matter how justified. Of course I see no problem with this and in fact regard it as a good thing. If a situation arises and a cop reacts in accordance to his or her training, then his action is *justified* and he has no reason to fear this law. Now, Con's response will presumably be that the government uses the same excuse (that only wrong-doers need worry) when justifying the privacy invasion of citizens through cameras and other means. I negate. I contend that the comparison is far from analogous considering the role and authority that police offers have in society compared to regular citizens. For instance, if I walked up to a stranger and asked to see his ID, they would probably look at me and tell me to bugger off. However if a PO made the same request, one would typically surrender their ID and follow any other instructions given. Further, if I were to randomly attack someone in the street, people may attempt to jump in or call the police to rectify the situation. However in an instance where a PO was seen in the same circumstance, people's reaction would be a lot different. My point here is this: If you're going to give someone as much power and authority as POs have, then there should be a lot of checks on that power to ensure no rampant abuse - as history shows us that power tends to manifest \\\"power trips\\\" among those with authority [2]. Con's second point was that cops must always be on their toes, and not have to second-guess their actions in life or death situations. However, it logically follows that if one's life was in fact threatened, that reacting accordingly would not warrant any unjust attention or punishment. Due to the risk involved in a profession such as law enforcement, it's reasonable to consider the threats one endures and assess whether or not their reaction was appropriate. Next, Con points out that cops \\\"already have to worry about restrictions.\\\" To me this seems a bit comical. Cops are given far more leeway in their authority than almost any other profession (aside from the military or other government agencies). These 'restrictions' are completely unclear to me. In 2006, numerous cops in plain clothes approached Sean Bell and friends in a car, and shot the three of them over 50 times in a matter of seconds [3]. The officers were found not guilty of any crime. In 1999, completely unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by more cops in plain clothes [4]. Again, all officers were found not guilty of any crime. So far history shows us that police can do the most heinous and unjustified things (not necessarily these 2 examples, but in general) and get away with it [2]. So, Con will have to expand on this point and explain to me the \\\"restrictions\\\" cops apparently have to worry about, considering they are typically not held accountable for their crimes. Finally, Con asks why \\\"everyone has to be a journalist\\\" and report things like this \\\"whether they're justified or not.\\\" I'll be frank -- to me this is an absurd question, but one that segues perfectly into the affirmative aspect of this debate. Citizens should be empowered to impose limits on the State by holding them accountable and subject to the same standards of civilians. There are far too many circumstances in which police completely abuse their power and authority! Thanks to recording technology, we have been able to catch a significant number of police acting completely outside their realm of authority to abuse their power and subject citizens to unjust treatment. One site depicts a cop arresting a Burger King employee because he THINKS she gave him the wrong change. The site also shows a cop threatening to ruin this kids life *by making up charges* after pulling this kid over for parking a suspicious vehicle in a commuter lot. You can also watch a cop knee a 70 year old lady in the forehead [5]. Stories of police brutality or other wrongful prejudice and attacks are NOT few and far between. In fact, a quick Google search or perusal of YouTube details millions of cases. I think almost everyone can recount a bad experience with a police officer. The bottom line is this: Because cops have so much power and influence in the legal community, ensuring that they're acting in accordance with the power bestowed upon them is paramount to upholding justice. I previously mentioned a cop threatening to make up false accusations that could literally ruin a young person's life. This is criminal and officers like this need to be caught and punished. The only way to gain proof of these acts is to record it. A \\\"he said, she said\\\" situation with a cop usually ALWAYS winds up in the cop's favor, making tangible evidence not only an asset but a requirement if you expect results. Additionally, I noted earlier that these laws were originally derived to protect private conversations. However, if a cop is talking to me, is this a \\\"private conversation?\\\" It seems logical that because I am a part of the conversation, that it does not exclude me from said conversation or the rights to said conversation - including recording it. However one Chicago man was arrested and released on 20,000$ bond simply for recording his own arrest [6]. He is being put on trial for an offense which carries with it a 4-15 year jail time penalty. This makes the eavesdropping law completely baseless considering it's not \\\"eavesdropping\\\" if one is being directly addressed! Now, considering all of the power an officer has in not only using discretion to determine if an arrest is necessary or not (consider, for example, the Burger King case I mentioned) but the fact that cops can and do assault people in the process of these arrests signifies that recording should be an option when you factor in how many times the events that took place either directly prior to or during the arrest have an impact in the ultimate court case that ensue. When my ex was bludgeoned by officers, the plethora of pictures of her black-and-blued body taken directly after the incident were not enough to incriminate the cops because there was no proof that the bruises were from them. Had evidence been allowed to be submitted (without fear of further punishment), she could have proven her case and had the officers appropriately disciplined. However without permissible evidence, there is no way to get these cops punished. Cops' word always have greater weight. I'm out of characters for now, but I greatly look forward to further proving my case in the upcoming rounds. Back to you, Volkov! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...\",\n \"administrative efficiency; ensuring justice This argument of course presupposes that we believe the Jean Charles Menezes case was investigated thoroughly. We have known for years that we have a corrupt police force. Stephen Lawrence highlighted the institutional racism which is inherent in our police force and the Menezes case has only served to show society that the police force is nothing more than a band of brothers who protect each others interests. With such a police force, CCTV footage can be tampered with or simply 'lost' in the administrative system. Thus, CCTV footage is merely a helpful tool for the police force, not to society as a whole.\",\n \"Crime cameras with ID technology deeply violate privacy \\\"Under the Watchful Eye\\\". American Civil Liberties Union - \\\"Threat to Civil Liberties from Combined Technologies Government-run video surveillance can radically alter the relationship between law enforcement and the public. By itself, pervasive video surveillance threatens privacy rights. But even more disturbing, the threat multiplies when government combines cameras with emerging technologies such as automated identification software, face and eye scans, radio frequency identification (RF ID) tags, and databases accessible to law enforcement. In that context, video surveillance provides a critical pillar of a surveillance infrastructure. It creates the potential for the government to monitor people in public space, in a way envisioned only in futuristic novels.\\\"\",\n \"Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law Theodore Dalrymple. \\\"Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence\\\". City Journal. October 16, 2007 - \\\"A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter.\\\"\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: \\\"Body cameras can help an investigation\\\" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, \\\"Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies.\\\" As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:\\\"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.\\\" Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance\",\n \"Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled \\\"Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy\\\", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?\",\n \"Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Security camera in public places are an invasion of privacy, feeling that your every move is being watched is not a good feeling. People should be free to travel or move a mall, street or a shop without being photograph or recorded. Being constantly watched is like being in jail and ordinary people are losing their freedom because of those security cameras. Another point to consider is, although law enforcement agencies claimed that only criminals should fear security cameras, one must keep in mind that some people have a fear of corrupt authorities who can use information obtain from security camera, in a twisted fashion to victimize others. Although, security cameras in high profile public places are a must, but the need to flood public places with cameras is not such a great idea, as it would cause more problems then it would solve.\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Excellent point I too believe that if people were to go around recording any LEO such as an undercover officer it could have very negative side affects such as aiding a criminal escape. As with any law there are stipulations that go along with the law such as the \\\"Stand your ground law\\\" in Florida. You cannot simply run up to someone and start attacking them and then claim you were just defending yourself when its all said and done. A law that would give citizens the right to record interactions with law enforcements should only apply when the officer is the one to start the interaction such as a traffic stop or when an officer comes to your property. Someone recording an undercover officer should be punished for it as the officer has not engaged them. This law would be to protect the citizens from police misconduct and to validate the story of both parties. Cops are already allowed to legally record citizens even without our consent but often times their dashboard cameras don't catch the entire situation leaving gaps in the story. As for exposing traffic patrols this has been a heated debate in Florida for a while now. The people believe that flashing your lights to warn of a speed trap is a form of communication which is protected under the 1st amendment and there are some cops that will not argue that but the majority do.In 2005 a Florida judge ruled that the statute did no make it illegal to warn people of speed traps. These illegal tickets resulted in people paying over 1,042,900 to the state. Everyone should have accountability for their actions LEO included. This is just speed traps, this isn't counting all the other illegal acts that the police commit some of which are physically assaulting people. Recording interactions with law enforcement would force the police to act with proper conduct. Citizens have a right to protect themselves from an abusive law enforcement. There should also be more severe consequences for LEO that are caught in illegal acts. The first video shows the misconduct of the police but the vast majority of these situations go unrecorded. Who can protect us when the ones who are trusted to do so are the ones that threaten us? http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://www.leftlanenews.com...\",\n \"Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.\",\n \"Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing them to do more important things, such as solving crimes, maintaining a presence on urban streets, etc. Speed cameras pay for themselves through fines and can even provide financial support for other police work. Studies have found that much more money is saved for the state and society through prevented casualties than is gained in penalties or spent on the cameras. The public can be educated to appreciate this benefit, especially as systems which apply penalty points for speeding offences instead of or as well as fines are clearly not solely motivated by greed.\",\n \"Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime. Ken Garcia. \\\"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\\\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \\\"There’s no doubt that people with thick rap sheets don’t like them, and they’re the people who are really infringing on our civil liberties.\\\"\",\n \"CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: \\\"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants\\\" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...\",\n \"Crime cameras place security over civil liberties. While security interests are important, security cameras wrongly place them over civil liberties. Constitutional principles surrounding civil liberties exist for a reason, and are meant to be immutable. Expediencies such as increased security should not be allowed to bend or break these important moral principles and lines.\",\n \"Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese said to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2008: \\\"In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad.\\\"[5]\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.\",\n \"Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.\",\n \"someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed) ..and weren't punished for it. it happens way too much - it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip. they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview. we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this, i can ask them the tough questions. we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up. let's do it\",\n \"Police should not waste time watching crime cameras It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With citizen recordings, cops are subject to bias. A) Unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? ----> Knowing that they're being recorded acts as a deterrent against police brutality. If an officer knows he's going to be held accountable for his actions, he's far more likely to abide by the law. B) Recording violates privacy ----> There is no violation if they know they're being recorded. It would be obvious to gauge from the tape if they knew they were or not. I would even go so far as to say that hidden cams should be allowed, so long as cops realize they *can possibly* be recorded at any time. However, I don't have to defend that here -- just that recording in general should be permissible. 2. Re: Criminals are using technology to get around police. ----> To re-state exactly what I said in the last round, Con has not presented any evidence that recording cops has or could tamper with police investigations or have detrimental results. How would recording an officer interact with you or another aid criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. If I record a cop talking to me, how is that harming anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. Con has ignored this whole rebuttal and just repeats that people use the internet for crime, which as I said is nothing new, unusual, or even relevant to this discussion. However Con did elaborate (repeat) that police are going to be subject to: A) Bias ----> I've said in the last round, \\\"Simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. The actions of the officer speak for themselves. Watching a PO threaten someone is not bias; it's a true representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven.\\\" Instead of responding to these contentions, Con just repeats the fact that officers will be subject to bias completely ignoring my rebuttal explaining contrary. B) Stress caused by videos that misrepresent facts ----> Once again, there's no reason for police to be stressed about possibly being recorded -- especially if the law becomes such that they must know they're being recorded. I've explained how it's easy to prove whether or not a cop was aware of this. Why should they be stressed if they follow protocol, and the tape can verify them acting as such? I've explained that this could be HELPFUL to the cops. Moreover, I've explained in my last point how facts will not be misrepresented and in fact confirmed. C) Privacy concerns ----> I've already explained how this is BS. I notice Con never answered my question about how recording my conversation with a cop violates his right to privacy when in fact he is addressing me... hmm. Also, why is the cops's privacy paramount vs. our right to protect ourself against a monopoly (tyranny) of law enforcement which always favors another officer's word? 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they compromise the law or officer's safety. ----> Once again, I've explained how recording POs will probably not be harmful in any way! Remember that Con never gave us one example of how this could be a bad thing. His only contention, being subject to bias, has been negated and explained how in fact recording can eliminate any hostility toward cops in a questionable situation (unless, of course, they're actually guilty in which case recording would be a good thing!). If not, recording can validate a cop's story. In short though, Con's point about not being able to punish citizens has been negated, and that's probably why he changed the topic. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. ----> Con's source proves my point exactly. He quotes, \\\"Over 2/3 of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol.\\\" Great! That's exactly what I want! More careful does not equivocate to less safe or more timid. Again, if they accidentally shoot an unarmed man because they thought he was reaching for a gun while he was really reaching for his wallet, nobody's saying being recorded should stop them from acting on their instincts -- in fact, it would validate their reaction. If they believe they're prone to so many mistakes to the point where this would be a problem, then perhaps law enforcement is not for them (and their authority would not benefit society). If \\\"being more careful\\\" translates to being more appropriate, I'm all for it. Con's quote continues to note that some officers were scared because they heard other cops were being prosecuted for unlawful arrest. I think this is perfect! Police should NOT be arresting people unlawfully! This once again validates the point that cops would think twice before acting against society and abusing their power. Also, n00b cops being anxious about this proves absolutely nothing considering n00b cops are going to be anxious no matter what, just as we all are with new jobs and especially when we're being recorded regardless of what that job is. Cops saying things will be \\\"misrepresented\\\" is completely false as I've explained. Further, cops being against this is totally irrelevant considering ANYONE would vote against being recorded at a new job. 5A. ----> Con's source is comical. It's titled \\\"police regulations\\\" but details more about what being a cop entails (i.e. how to be promoted, maternity pay, issues of retirement, etc.) rather than what cops stress out over from the job. In short, being expected to follow the rules is not a negative added stress. It should be of utmost importance and concern and at the forefront of their conscious while working. 5B. ----> Extend my argument of no possible bias. 6. ----> Extend my point that recording can be used to prove that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7A. ----> First, Con admits that recording can protect people against cop abuse and notes \\\"those incidents should be protected under law.\\\" However, if recording is all-together illegal, how can this be protected under law? This is seemingly contradictory. 7B. ----> Con says if recording is illegal, but video survives, \\\"it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed.\\\" I'm not sure what he is talking about here; if recording is illegal than this would be considered inadmissible evidence in any court, meaning proof of police brutality via video is 100% irrelevant to the case. In any case, I asked Con to explain what a better way of achieving those ends (catching police) would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. Con never responded to this question and can't in the last round. 8. ----> Con says a dirty cop would simply dispose of recorded evidence. First, he may not know he was being recorded. Second, this is unlikely considering it'd probably be easy to prove and he'd get in even more trouble. 9. ----> In conclusion, I pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence to assume innocent people would be hurt from this, and that indeed it's a minimal risk. Con simply repeats that if the cop is not acting wrongfully, there's no reason for recording him (which ignores my arguments regarding deterrence, protection and citizen's rights). He also restates that facts can be misrepresented (negated) and cops' privacy violated (also negated). If cops are given so much power, we have the right to protect ourself from tyranny of that power - especially if there is no evidence that recording is overtly harmful or unnecessarily hinders cops in any way. On balance, legalized recording provides us the best safety and protection of society's rights while emphasizing more trust and integrity regarding law enforcement and their relationship with society. Thank you.\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police In all those situations a person recording the present situation would have no detrimental affect on the officers except for the press giving a live feed. In that particular situation I could understand restricting their reasoning to restrict the live coverage but I still don't agree with it one hundred percent. The raid you speak of has been the center of much heated debate because of the excessive force being used when a only a de criminalized amount of marijuana was found. The problem with law enforcement being the only ones allowed to record such encounters is that it leaves room for further corruption. For example: The officer recording a raid could be simply looking the other direction when another officer is planting drugs. One side being entrusted with the responsibility of recording such encounters leaves room for corruption. Both the civilian and law enforcement sides should bear the responsibility. It is each sides right to have the means necessary to defend themselves such as in a court of law the defense and prosecution are both represented by attorneys. Law enforcement is here to protect and serve the people so it should be the needs of the people that come first. The people are the ones that need the extra protection for obvious reasons.\",\n \"Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance. Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Anyone else care to take up this debate?\",\n \"Police officers should be more friendly I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on \\\"community policing\\\". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.\",\n \"Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.\",\n \"Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction You will be expected to use evidence and logic to prove your position. Please use acceptable grammar, good structure, and easily identifiable sources (I personally prefer URLs). You will only have 24 hours to make each argument. Clarification of terms: American law enforcement - while it may be of benefit to other nations as well, this debate is only concerned with the current wide spread discussion of this new policy in the United States. A law enforcement officer (which is common abbreviated to LEO) is any public sector employee concerned with enforcing laws. This includes city police officers, county sheriff deputies, state/highway patrol officers, border patrol officers, federal marshals, etc. Body camera - any sort of recording device carried by LEOs. While this specifically means a camera mounted on the officers body, it will also include head mounted cameras for the sake of this debate. We will not be concerned with vehicle cameras. Civilian interaction - This includes traffic stops, initial investigation/questioning, crowd control, or any other instance where LEOs respond to a call or intervene in a situation. We will not be including interactions within police facilities, where it is expect that most areas are already under surveillance. Today, there has been a resounding call to reform police practices. This is the result mostly of the various instances of alleged racially provoked shootings at the hands of police. Many cases result in disappointing verdicts, based on a lack of evidence. A prime example was the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted on the basis of a lack of evidence. Because there was no video evidence, it was difficult for the courts to paint a clear picture of what occurred that night. Even though the shooting was highly suspicious, it would have been near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson wasn't engaging in legitimate self defense. Due to the accessibility of recording equipment in this day and age (thanks to smart phones), some cases have experienced the opposite effect. When Walter Scott was shot in North Charleston, SC by officer Michael Slager, video evidence led to a swift indictment. The question remains why do we not utilize this new technology in full effect. My contentions Protection of the rights of civilians: Simply put, surveilling the actions officers take with civilians holds them to a high standard of professionalism. If an officer knows they are being recorded, they realize they will also be scrutinized for their actions. Many studies have noted the positive effect cameras have on use-of-force trends (I will list three separate studies). All three studies noted a drastic decrease in instances of use-of-force and complaints filed. . http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org...... . http://www.latimes.com...... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Protection of the rights of officers: Police officers are also concerned about faulty complaints and false assumptions about events. Anyone can file a police report, be it justified or not. Police body cameras would provide clarity to the circumstance surrounding the report. Video evidence does not lie: More evidence is better evidence. One common court room dispute is whether or not a detainee was read their Miranda rights before being questioned. According to the supreme court, any evidence obtained through an interrogation of someone who has not been Mirandized is inadmissible in court. Whenever there is a dispute over whether or not the defendant was read the Miranda warning, it often comes do to the officer's word versus their's. With body cameras, it will be easy to show video evidence of an officer reciting the warning or not. This is just one example.\",\n \"Absolutely! I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.\",\n \"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks to Lwerd for broaching this interesting and controversial topic, and one that I'm sure will lead to a fantastic debate. I only have one thing to clarify: I've never stated that it should be completely illegal to record interactions, but that it can present a very dangerous and disruptive thing for law enforcement to handle. I take the position that restrictions are not unreasonable in order to protect both the officer's privacy and law enforcement's integrity, but that to make it completely illegal is more than a tad extreme. There are much easier ways of enforcing these restrictions while maintaining the ability for citizens to record any crimes committed by police officers and have that admitted as evidence in court or to the media. However, if need be, for this argument I will argue for full illegality. Possibly not important, but I certainly believe is, as knowing someone's motivations for arguing for a certain position. So if I seem not to be taking \\\"farging people taking picture of the cops\\\" to heart, you'll know why. Another thing to clarify is that I don't have a very large amount of time to devote to DDO during the afternoons this week, but hopefully we can wrap up this debate by Wednesday, when it'll matter. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck!\",\n \"Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras \\\"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments\\\" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: \\\"Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.\\\" And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: \\\"So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \\\"right\\\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself.\\\" Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. \\\"Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government.\\\" I did not. Here is exact quote. \\\" The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair.\\\" \\\"What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.\\\" It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. \\\"The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished.\\\" Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. \\\"Nobody is forcing \\\"fairness\\\" onto anyone.\\\" They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. \\\"Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace.\\\" Which is still a group... thus my point stands. \\\" It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong.\\\" FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. \\\"My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case.\\\" I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. \\\"1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system.\\\" It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as \\\"lower racial discrimination\\\". Whether or not their classification of what counts as \\\"lower racial discrimination\\\" is objectively correct, is unknown. \\\"2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force.\\\" And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police While there do need to be unambiguous protections for citizens exercising the first amendment freedom(press) to record and report police wrongdoing(as well as exceptional conduct), a one size fits all approach to this could compromise police departments' ability to conduct operations. For example, the right to use zoom lenses on police could be critical in rural environments where the police may be executing a warrant hundreds of meters from the closest neighbor. However, this same protection could put the operational security of urban police forces at risk to Organized Crime conducting 'counter-intelligence' by spying through a window into barracks or field command posts. Also, during a hostage incident, even the established press must sometimes be gagged in order to prevent the insurgents from monitoring police activity on the news. Speaking to the efficacy of mandating police record themselves(thoroughly), in 2010 a SWAT officer recorded a raid in Columbia, MO that lead to a controversy surround the shooting of a family dog, over a de-criminalized quantity of marijuana. This video started to open our eyes to the vast over-militarization of our police force, and more a comprehensive protocol requiring this be the standard procedure would be much more rational than a national law allowing anyone to record police, even if they have clear, yet unprovable, malicious intent. Police need to be granted some discretion to judge between the citizen press and a thug taking a record of the officers who may be arresting his friend, for the purposes of retribution.\",\n \"Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don\\\"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don\\\"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see \\\"Top 20 Drunks\\\" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don\\\"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don\\\"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we\\\"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. \\\"My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered.\\\" Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. \\\"You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement.\\\" 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. \\\"By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie.\\\" 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, \\\"I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\\\" This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. No sources allowed in this debate.\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. \\\"2. There's already a fund for the body cameras.\\\" Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. \\\"3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie.\\\" Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. \\\"4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game.\\\" The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. \\\"5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?\\\" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance\",\n \"Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- \\\"Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race\\\" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that \\\"betting\\\" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- \\\"what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. \\\" With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- \\\"i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. \\\" Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.\",\n \"Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of \\\"a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering\\\" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.\",\n \"A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.\",\n \"Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don\\\"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:\\\"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime,\\\" states the policy. It adds that, \\\"(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties.\\\" http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI\\\"ll keep this short. There isn\\\"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven\\\"t won because I\\\"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn\\\"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I\\\"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses\\\"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such).\\\"I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate.\\\"I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera.\\\"This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. \\\"This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?\\\"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I\\\"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.\",\n \"Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.\",\n \"Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}},{"rowIdx":47,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should everyone get a universal basic income?"},"positive":{"kind":"list like","value":["Universal Basic Income\nIntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...","Universal Basic Income is a good thing\nLet's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.","We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class\nI'm looking to have a short but concise debate. The full topic is \"We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class in the USA through additional taxation. \" Wealth redistribution will incur an extra 10% tax per dollar earned over the existing income tax rate to the wealthiest 1% to be redistributed to the lower-middle class.","Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI\nOk, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis\"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can\"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don\"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual\"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The \"public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone\"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state \" and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into \"real freedom\" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals\" \"power to say no\", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that\" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that\" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor\"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, \"This unpaid work is valuable and\"UBI is recognition of that.\" Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. \"There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers\"\" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor\"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor\"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they\"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that\"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people\"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers\" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids\" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.","Universal Basic Income\nA Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.","Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI\nI negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.","The US ought to provide an universal basic income.\nIgnore bsh1's stuff, standard rules apply for this debate. Please forgive heavy formating issues, as files are having troubles on my computer. This is written near verbatim from original sources which will be listed below. Contention 1 is Innovation As according to the US Department of Energy, clean energy innovation is the solution to climate change, being key to unlocking new technologies and low-cost clean energy breakthroughs needed to rapidly bend the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. innovation drives the cost reduction necessary to transform global energy markets. However we don\"t have the luxury of waiting for new technologies to emerge. We need to rapidly accelerate the pace of innovation to meet the challenge of limiting global temperature. UBI is linked to increased innovation in three ways. 1. Entrepreneurship According to Scott Santeens of the Medium, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend and businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. This is because of risk aversion due to rising economic insecurity. When people are financially insecure, they worry more about going from paycheck to paycheck rather than innovation and startups. Incomes adjusted for inflation have not budged for decades, and the jobs providing those incomes have gone from secure careers to insecure jobs, part-time and contract work, and gig labor, decreasing economic security. Decreasing economic security means a population decreasingly likely to take risks. Because of UBI, the fear of impoverishment hunger and homelessness is eliminated. And with it, the risks of failure considered too steep to take a chance on something. Additionally, a basic income is also a basic capital, enabling people to create a new product or service. Such effects have been observed in Nambia and India where markets have flourished thanks to the tripling of entrepreneurs. 2. Education According to Dannielle Douglas Gabriel of the Washington Post, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. On average, these teenagers earned almost a quarter of the money their families needed to live, keeping 42 percent of households from falling below the poverty line. UBI helps lower the overall dropout rate by ensuring teens\" families are guaranteed a basic income, building up a base for a future generation of innovators who otherwise wouldn\"t have the skills go into STEM fields. 3. College UBI provides funds for higher education, increasing innovation as more students become college educated. Contention 2 is Lower Work Hours According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, western European countries have significantly reduced work hours while the US has not. Western Europe had about the same hours worked per person as the U.S. in the early 1970s, but by 2005 they were about 50 percent less. This choice between fewer work hours versus increased consumption has significant implications for the rate of climate change. Studies indicate shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less overall global climate change via lowering levels of consumption, the impactof reducing work hours by an annual average of 0.5 percent in the US would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of global warming. If work hours decline even slightly, climate change is averted as american consumerism falls. As Western Europe has had lower work hours than the US for decades on end, it proves that lower work hours don\"t draw any significant negative consequences. According to Alicia Munnell, in the late 1960s and 1970s thee federal government sponsored four large-scale social experiments on the negative income tax a basic income program, the largest of whom including 4,800 families over an 11 year span. The experiments caused reductions in work effort, among women 17 percent and among men 7 percent. NIT basic income experiments have empirically decreased overall work. If done at a national scale, UBI would substantially decrease work hours and helping solve global warming through lower overall levels of consumption. Contention 3 is Economic Inequality Income inequality has been extensively correlated with environmental degradation, with] negative correlation between income inequality and environmental sustainability. higher the income inequality the worse the environmental indicators such as biodiversity loss and environmental composite indices [like ones ecological footprint. from an economic perspective income inequality reduces pro-environmental public spending via a \"relative income effect\" which causes shifts in the preferences of those with below average incomes in favour of greater consumption of private goods instead of public ones. Using data on 19 OECD countries studies found] that wider income inequalities were associated with lower environmental expenditure. According to Dylan Matthews of Box, researchers estimate that UBI would cut the poverty rate for all persons between 40 and 84 percent. Helping eliminating structural violence and poverty and making those formerly poor equals in society. Overall UBI first, increases innovation by increasing entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education, second lowers working hours and by extension carbon emissions, and third, decreases overall inequality. all of whom link back to solving global warming. For these reasons I urge voting for the motion. Sources US Department of Energy, (December 5, 2015), \"How We Solve Climate Change\", https://www.energy.gov... Scott Santeens, (November 30, 2016), \"Universal Basic Income Will Accelerate Innovation by Reducing Our Fear of Failure\", https://medium.com... Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, 4-16-2015, \"An alarming number of teenagers are quitting school to work,\" Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com... Center for Economic and Policy Research (February, 2013) \"Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change \" http://cepr.net... Alicia H. Munnell (N/D) \"Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview\" http://www.bostonfed.org...","Increase Social Services for persons living in poverty.\nIn 2006 the United States Census Bureau reported that persons at the ages of 18 and under have higher rates of poverty than any other age group in the US and have had since 1975. That being said, we are able to see where the problem lies and just who needs to be helped to fix a large portion of it. It is because of that fact that my partner Evan and I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution the states: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. Observation 1: Harms Sub Point A:: Having Children in Poverty not Only Hurts the Individual but also Hurts the U.S. The Economic Costs of Poverty (americanprogress.org) Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor By Holzer, J. Duncan, and Ludwig, January 24, 2007 But there is also an economic case for reducing child poverty. When children grow up in poverty, they are somewhat more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, which in turn reflects lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat more likely to engage in crime and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced productive activity generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy. Sub Point B: Poverty is on Rise Why Poverty Persists NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) June 2006 Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates. Overall, increasing the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point increases the poverty rate by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points. Bureau of Labor Statistics THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – AUGUST 2009 Sept 4th 2009 In August, the number of unemployed persons increased by 466,000 to 14.9 million, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent. The rate had been little changed in June and July, after increasing 0.4 or 0.5 percentage point in each month from December 2008 through May. Since the recession began in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 7.4 Million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 4.8 percentage points. Sub Point C: U.S. is Experiencing a Shortage of Skilled Laborers By Teresa Watanabe April 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Shortage of skilled workers looms in U.S. With baby boomers preparing to retire as the best educated and most skilled workforce in U.S. history, a growing chorus of demographers and labor experts is raising concerns that workers in the nation lack the critical skills needed to replace them. Observation 2: Inherency Sub Point A: The cost of day care is too high for families in poverty to meet. NACCRRA Price of Child Care Report 2008 According to the report, in 2007, the average price of full-time care for an infant in a center was as high as $14,591 a year. For a 4-year-old in a center, parents paid up to $10,787 a year for full-time care. Parents of school-age children paid up to $8,600 a year for part-time care in a center Sub Point B: College has become too expensive. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Report says college is too expensive Dec 5th 2008 A new report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education suggests that soaring college costs threaten to make college unaffordable for the majority of Americans. College tuition and fees rose 439% from 1982 to 2007 while the median family income rose just 147%, without adjusting for inflation. Sub Point C: There is a shortage of space for daycare. The SunTimes Prescott James, The Daily Graphic March 2009 Daycare facilities around the country have a shortage of space available for the care of young children. April Krastel is the executive director for the Portage Day Care Centre Inc., and as a childcare professional, she recognizes the shortage of space for children who need care. The affirmative team proposes the following plan to help the impoverished and decrease the number of families in poverty by addressing the problem at its root source. The affirmative team will allow for all persons living in poverty to receive free daycare as paid for by the government. In addition, the affirmative plan will allow funding for persons living in poverty to also obtain up to $7,000 for college tuition for as many years as needed in exchange for 500 hours community service hours per year (or 1 and half hours per day.) Should the work not be completed during the college years there is up to a one year grace period to pay back all of the money. In addition, should the student quit college or not pursue the hours needed, the money will become equivalent to that of a loan where they will be required to pay back the money by their own means. The plan will be funded by adding an additional ten cent tax to every dollar spent on cigarettes, alcohol, and all published pornographic material, (i.e. magazine, movies, etc…) The affirmative team claims the power of FIAT. Observation3: Solvency Sub Point A: Education helps countries get out of poverty. UN Works 2009 http://www.un.org...... Every day, Romsaas Wang sees children die of preventable diseases because their mothers could not read and write. \"If you really put effort into education it will influence all the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It's more risky not to invest in education because education helps countries get out of poverty.\" Sub Point B: Providing Day Care will increase the amount of jobs in the US. Investing In America's Youngest Children Is Essential for an Effective Stimulus Plan and a Long-Term Boost to Economy STEVE BARNETT, Jan. 8 2008 Early childhood programs not only will free parents to take new jobs, they can directly contribute in many other ways to the positive effects of a stimulus package. Multipliers for child care are 1.91 for total output (91 cents in additional economic activity on top of each dollar of federal investment) and 1.50 for employment (1 additional job created for every two new jobs created by federal investments in child care). Sub Point C: People with a College Education are less likely to be in Poverty 2004 American Community Survey The more education a person has, the less likely they will live in poverty. The poverty rate among people who earn a college degree is much lower than the poverty rate among people with only a high school diploma. And those who earn a high school diploma do much better than those without one. Advantage One: Early Education helps kids later in life. Investing In America's Youngest Children Is Essential for an Effective Stimulus Plan and a Long-Term Boost to Economy STEVE BARNETT, Jan. 8 2008 In addition to improving early learning and development, high-quality early education decreases school failure, increases economic productivity and decreases crime and delinquency. Advantage Two: Universal Childcare increases the quality of child care. Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being Michael Baker, University of Toronto and NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) April, 2008 In addition to increasing the quantity of places, there has been some emphasis on increasing the quality of care. Part of this has come through regulatory changes. Formal qualifications were raised for both CPE and family caregivers. The government has also implemented new wage policies in the sector to make it a more attractive profession: phased in over a four year period. In addition, it resulted in an average wage increase of 38 to 40 percent.","Basic income tax should be abolished\nAbolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.","The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including l...\nThe wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.","The US ought to provide an universal basic income.\nFor clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says \"And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government\" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled \"Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" And in this article they explain what negative income tax is \"The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate\"which is to say, the IRS would pay them.\" Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. \"A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.\" The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress\"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. \"Automation Is Killing These Jobs.\" Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. \"1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future.\" CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. \"The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income.\" FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. \"Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?\" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. \"Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny.\" Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. \"\"Universal Basic Income\" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.","Universal Basic Income\nLet's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.","Universal Basic Income\nFull resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;"],"string":"[\n \"Universal Basic Income\\nIntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...\",\n \"Universal Basic Income is a good thing\\nLet's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.\",\n \"We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class\\nI'm looking to have a short but concise debate. The full topic is \\\"We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class in the USA through additional taxation. \\\" Wealth redistribution will incur an extra 10% tax per dollar earned over the existing income tax rate to the wealthiest 1% to be redistributed to the lower-middle class.\",\n \"Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI\\nOk, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis\\\"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can\\\"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don\\\"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual\\\"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The \\\"public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone\\\"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state \\\" and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into \\\"real freedom\\\" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals\\\" \\\"power to say no\\\", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that\\\" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that\\\" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor\\\"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, \\\"This unpaid work is valuable and\\\"UBI is recognition of that.\\\" Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. \\\"There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers\\\"\\\" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor\\\"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor\\\"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they\\\"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that\\\"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people\\\"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers\\\" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids\\\" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income\\nA Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.\",\n \"Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI\\nI negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.\",\n \"The US ought to provide an universal basic income.\\nIgnore bsh1's stuff, standard rules apply for this debate. Please forgive heavy formating issues, as files are having troubles on my computer. This is written near verbatim from original sources which will be listed below. Contention 1 is Innovation As according to the US Department of Energy, clean energy innovation is the solution to climate change, being key to unlocking new technologies and low-cost clean energy breakthroughs needed to rapidly bend the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. innovation drives the cost reduction necessary to transform global energy markets. However we don\\\"t have the luxury of waiting for new technologies to emerge. We need to rapidly accelerate the pace of innovation to meet the challenge of limiting global temperature. UBI is linked to increased innovation in three ways. 1. Entrepreneurship According to Scott Santeens of the Medium, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend and businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. This is because of risk aversion due to rising economic insecurity. When people are financially insecure, they worry more about going from paycheck to paycheck rather than innovation and startups. Incomes adjusted for inflation have not budged for decades, and the jobs providing those incomes have gone from secure careers to insecure jobs, part-time and contract work, and gig labor, decreasing economic security. Decreasing economic security means a population decreasingly likely to take risks. Because of UBI, the fear of impoverishment hunger and homelessness is eliminated. And with it, the risks of failure considered too steep to take a chance on something. Additionally, a basic income is also a basic capital, enabling people to create a new product or service. Such effects have been observed in Nambia and India where markets have flourished thanks to the tripling of entrepreneurs. 2. Education According to Dannielle Douglas Gabriel of the Washington Post, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. On average, these teenagers earned almost a quarter of the money their families needed to live, keeping 42 percent of households from falling below the poverty line. UBI helps lower the overall dropout rate by ensuring teens\\\" families are guaranteed a basic income, building up a base for a future generation of innovators who otherwise wouldn\\\"t have the skills go into STEM fields. 3. College UBI provides funds for higher education, increasing innovation as more students become college educated. Contention 2 is Lower Work Hours According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, western European countries have significantly reduced work hours while the US has not. Western Europe had about the same hours worked per person as the U.S. in the early 1970s, but by 2005 they were about 50 percent less. This choice between fewer work hours versus increased consumption has significant implications for the rate of climate change. Studies indicate shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less overall global climate change via lowering levels of consumption, the impactof reducing work hours by an annual average of 0.5 percent in the US would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of global warming. If work hours decline even slightly, climate change is averted as american consumerism falls. As Western Europe has had lower work hours than the US for decades on end, it proves that lower work hours don\\\"t draw any significant negative consequences. According to Alicia Munnell, in the late 1960s and 1970s thee federal government sponsored four large-scale social experiments on the negative income tax a basic income program, the largest of whom including 4,800 families over an 11 year span. The experiments caused reductions in work effort, among women 17 percent and among men 7 percent. NIT basic income experiments have empirically decreased overall work. If done at a national scale, UBI would substantially decrease work hours and helping solve global warming through lower overall levels of consumption. Contention 3 is Economic Inequality Income inequality has been extensively correlated with environmental degradation, with] negative correlation between income inequality and environmental sustainability. higher the income inequality the worse the environmental indicators such as biodiversity loss and environmental composite indices [like ones ecological footprint. from an economic perspective income inequality reduces pro-environmental public spending via a \\\"relative income effect\\\" which causes shifts in the preferences of those with below average incomes in favour of greater consumption of private goods instead of public ones. Using data on 19 OECD countries studies found] that wider income inequalities were associated with lower environmental expenditure. According to Dylan Matthews of Box, researchers estimate that UBI would cut the poverty rate for all persons between 40 and 84 percent. Helping eliminating structural violence and poverty and making those formerly poor equals in society. Overall UBI first, increases innovation by increasing entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education, second lowers working hours and by extension carbon emissions, and third, decreases overall inequality. all of whom link back to solving global warming. For these reasons I urge voting for the motion. Sources US Department of Energy, (December 5, 2015), \\\"How We Solve Climate Change\\\", https://www.energy.gov... Scott Santeens, (November 30, 2016), \\\"Universal Basic Income Will Accelerate Innovation by Reducing Our Fear of Failure\\\", https://medium.com... Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, 4-16-2015, \\\"An alarming number of teenagers are quitting school to work,\\\" Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com... Center for Economic and Policy Research (February, 2013) \\\"Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change \\\" http://cepr.net... Alicia H. Munnell (N/D) \\\"Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview\\\" http://www.bostonfed.org...\",\n \"Increase Social Services for persons living in poverty.\\nIn 2006 the United States Census Bureau reported that persons at the ages of 18 and under have higher rates of poverty than any other age group in the US and have had since 1975. That being said, we are able to see where the problem lies and just who needs to be helped to fix a large portion of it. It is because of that fact that my partner Evan and I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution the states: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. Observation 1: Harms Sub Point A:: Having Children in Poverty not Only Hurts the Individual but also Hurts the U.S. The Economic Costs of Poverty (americanprogress.org) Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor By Holzer, J. Duncan, and Ludwig, January 24, 2007 But there is also an economic case for reducing child poverty. When children grow up in poverty, they are somewhat more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, which in turn reflects lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat more likely to engage in crime and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced productive activity generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy. Sub Point B: Poverty is on Rise Why Poverty Persists NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) June 2006 Specifically, they find that the unemployment rate, median wages, and wage inequality in the lower half of the wage distribution all are significant determinants of poverty rates. Overall, increasing the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point increases the poverty rate by 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points. Bureau of Labor Statistics THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – AUGUST 2009 Sept 4th 2009 In August, the number of unemployed persons increased by 466,000 to 14.9 million, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent. The rate had been little changed in June and July, after increasing 0.4 or 0.5 percentage point in each month from December 2008 through May. Since the recession began in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 7.4 Million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 4.8 percentage points. Sub Point C: U.S. is Experiencing a Shortage of Skilled Laborers By Teresa Watanabe April 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Shortage of skilled workers looms in U.S. With baby boomers preparing to retire as the best educated and most skilled workforce in U.S. history, a growing chorus of demographers and labor experts is raising concerns that workers in the nation lack the critical skills needed to replace them. Observation 2: Inherency Sub Point A: The cost of day care is too high for families in poverty to meet. NACCRRA Price of Child Care Report 2008 According to the report, in 2007, the average price of full-time care for an infant in a center was as high as $14,591 a year. For a 4-year-old in a center, parents paid up to $10,787 a year for full-time care. Parents of school-age children paid up to $8,600 a year for part-time care in a center Sub Point B: College has become too expensive. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Report says college is too expensive Dec 5th 2008 A new report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education suggests that soaring college costs threaten to make college unaffordable for the majority of Americans. College tuition and fees rose 439% from 1982 to 2007 while the median family income rose just 147%, without adjusting for inflation. Sub Point C: There is a shortage of space for daycare. The SunTimes Prescott James, The Daily Graphic March 2009 Daycare facilities around the country have a shortage of space available for the care of young children. April Krastel is the executive director for the Portage Day Care Centre Inc., and as a childcare professional, she recognizes the shortage of space for children who need care. The affirmative team proposes the following plan to help the impoverished and decrease the number of families in poverty by addressing the problem at its root source. The affirmative team will allow for all persons living in poverty to receive free daycare as paid for by the government. In addition, the affirmative plan will allow funding for persons living in poverty to also obtain up to $7,000 for college tuition for as many years as needed in exchange for 500 hours community service hours per year (or 1 and half hours per day.) Should the work not be completed during the college years there is up to a one year grace period to pay back all of the money. In addition, should the student quit college or not pursue the hours needed, the money will become equivalent to that of a loan where they will be required to pay back the money by their own means. The plan will be funded by adding an additional ten cent tax to every dollar spent on cigarettes, alcohol, and all published pornographic material, (i.e. magazine, movies, etc…) The affirmative team claims the power of FIAT. Observation3: Solvency Sub Point A: Education helps countries get out of poverty. UN Works 2009 http://www.un.org...... Every day, Romsaas Wang sees children die of preventable diseases because their mothers could not read and write. \\\"If you really put effort into education it will influence all the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It's more risky not to invest in education because education helps countries get out of poverty.\\\" Sub Point B: Providing Day Care will increase the amount of jobs in the US. Investing In America's Youngest Children Is Essential for an Effective Stimulus Plan and a Long-Term Boost to Economy STEVE BARNETT, Jan. 8 2008 Early childhood programs not only will free parents to take new jobs, they can directly contribute in many other ways to the positive effects of a stimulus package. Multipliers for child care are 1.91 for total output (91 cents in additional economic activity on top of each dollar of federal investment) and 1.50 for employment (1 additional job created for every two new jobs created by federal investments in child care). Sub Point C: People with a College Education are less likely to be in Poverty 2004 American Community Survey The more education a person has, the less likely they will live in poverty. The poverty rate among people who earn a college degree is much lower than the poverty rate among people with only a high school diploma. And those who earn a high school diploma do much better than those without one. Advantage One: Early Education helps kids later in life. Investing In America's Youngest Children Is Essential for an Effective Stimulus Plan and a Long-Term Boost to Economy STEVE BARNETT, Jan. 8 2008 In addition to improving early learning and development, high-quality early education decreases school failure, increases economic productivity and decreases crime and delinquency. Advantage Two: Universal Childcare increases the quality of child care. Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being Michael Baker, University of Toronto and NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) April, 2008 In addition to increasing the quantity of places, there has been some emphasis on increasing the quality of care. Part of this has come through regulatory changes. Formal qualifications were raised for both CPE and family caregivers. The government has also implemented new wage policies in the sector to make it a more attractive profession: phased in over a four year period. In addition, it resulted in an average wage increase of 38 to 40 percent.\",\n \"Basic income tax should be abolished\\nAbolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.\",\n \"The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including l...\\nThe wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.\",\n \"The US ought to provide an universal basic income.\\nFor clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says \\\"And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government\\\" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled \\\"Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket.\\\" And in this article they explain what negative income tax is \\\"The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate\\\"which is to say, the IRS would pay them.\\\" Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. \\\"A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.\\\" The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress\\\"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. \\\"Automation Is Killing These Jobs.\\\" Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. \\\"1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future.\\\" CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. \\\"The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income.\\\" FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. \\\"Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?\\\" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. \\\"Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny.\\\" Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. \\\"\\\"Universal Basic Income\\\" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket.\\\" Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income\\nLet's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income\\nFull resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;\"\n]","isConversational":false},"negative":{"kind":"list like","value":["The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Every country that has implemented universal health care, has seen that the sustem fails the citizens. The government will end up paying for the health care and seeing as how it will be paying for every person in America, the costs will go up significantly. This is unavoidable. While there is a 1000 character max, I cannot debate fully, but felt it was only fair to my opponent to at least give her something, as I did agree to the debate.","The United States should design a universal health care system. I just want to start off by saying, there is a problem with U. S. health care SYSTEM. I just don't believe that Universal is the cure. My Points: 1. Number of people without Health Care is overstated 2. Destroys Privacy 3. Make everyone's problems our own 4. Doctor's have no incentive to provide adequate care 5. Companies cut down research on drugs 6. Examples Your Responses: 1. \"First off, the number of uninsured Americans is worse then it has ever been before (. http://www.cbpp.org......) and is growing worse. This indicates that our efforts either: A. Aren't working OR B. Never did. Either one isn't too good. \" - I want you to understand ust because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care. There are many nonprofits agency's and and government-run hospitals (like the VA) that provide services to those who don't have insurance. I also want you to understand that it is illegal to deny health care to anyone just because they do not have insurance. Uninsured Americans are a problem to our current system costs, but don't tell me that they are stuck with no health care if something happens to them. 2. \"There was no reasoning behind this point. A simple claim means nothing unless you back it up. Please clarify how this happens. \" - What do you mean, no reasoning? Do you not understand what I'm saying? Do you understand what universal health care means? Well, in case you don't, I will tell you. It means that health care costs will be spread to all Americans, whether you are 20 and healthier than ever (don't need health care) or 88 and depend solely on health care. I think that this is very unfair. I'm a strong believer that you decide a lot of what your health is like. You can prevent some major illnesses earlier in your life if you have the right lifestyle. People who never exercise, sit on the couch all day, drink 8 beers a night, and smoke a pack a day are much more likely than someone who does the opposite. Why should the opposite person be responsible for the lazy ones? To tell you the truth, although I have health insurance, I don't need it and would be fine without it. I have it because my business pays for it. When it becomes universal, should I be forced to pay for health care when I don't even need it? 3. \"If you mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this, well then that's true. However, studies show that, overall, universal health care could actually be beneficial in terms of the amount of money spent on it. \" - Yes, I do mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this. The expenses for universal health care would have to be paid for somehow so of course it would come from the tax payers. This means that we pay ridicously high taxes, we have have cuts in different areas of our government. For example, less education spending, less medical research spending or less military spending. So, as much people think that universal health care is \"free\", it really isn't because our taxes will be higher and/or we loose spending in our key ares. Is it really worth it if we have to cut these important things? 4. \"Well, assuming all doctor's are profit driven and have no qualms over effectually killing innocents by not providing care, then yes. .. you're right. However, most doctor's get into the practice because they want to help people, not because they want money. You gave an example that the doctors need money to pay off loans, but can you give one example of a practicing doctor that isn't well off? The fact is, doctor's will always be relatively wealthy, even with pay-cuts. \" - I wouldn't go as extreme as killing innocent patients by not providing care. Come on, we all know that there are good doctors and bad doctors. With universal health care, all doctors would have government jobs. As being a government job, they would have statute-mandated salaries. With government jobs, there is not much flexibility for better performing workers or harder working workers. They will basically all be getting paid about the same no matter what the performance. I believe that many doctors go into the profession to make the big bucks AND care for people. If doctors wouldn't be getting paid as much, do you really think that many students would want to really go through the long torture of medical school? 5. \"I fail to see the logic behind this. Please clarify. However, just assuming that there is logic behind it, here is a link that responds:\" - How can you not see the logic around it? Cut in drug research spending = less research being done = less cures for diseases, etc. 6. \"Uncle: Personal cites really aren't too useful in this debate. I'm not saying you're lieing, but there really isn't a way to tell if you actually have such an uncle. I could just as easily have an uncle in England whose live was saved by universal health care. Canada and England: First, let me point out that these are individual examples. If these were widely reciprocated, then that would be great (actually, it'd be bad, but whatever), but fortunately, they aren't. Additionally, each of these countries has a better health care system then ours: . http://www.photius.com...; - As far as my Uncle goes, take it for what it's worth. I don't believe that it is issue with him. I think the overall service from a government ran hospital sucks. I am not going to sit here and lie to you, this is a debate and the point isn't to lie and win. I'm not worried about wins/losses, I'm hoping to help America understand. Can you give an example of a country that has a large amount of people that has a very good universal health care system? As far as those countries having a better health care system, that means nothing to me. I realize our health care system is bad, you don't have to tell me that. I can tell you that the U. S. has some of the most top notch health care as far as the care goes. We have more technology than most countries. I really have no care for how our health care system ranks right now, because something needs to be done. Being the best health care system doesn't mean there health care is good. It means that they have a decent system. Does it mean they have the most technology and are helping there patients out better than U. S. hospitals? NO Your Points: 1. \"Democracy In a democracy, people choose. America is a democracy. America wants universal health care. \" I want to first start out by saying the \"liberal media\" wants universal health care. That was very brave of you to sum up from 3 articles that \"America wants universal health care. \" Your right, everyone has a right to health care. And everyone does. If you are uninsured, you have the right to health care. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it helped me out. The individual and not the government or doctors should get the choice to determine what amount of health care coverage, if any, is appropriate for my needs. My New Points : - Look at other government ran agencies out there. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is a great example of another government ran agency. I can tell you what, I don't hear much, if any good about those places. Workers are always crabby, you wait forever, and the service sucks. If your experiences are different, let me know where you live. When you have the government run agencies, it brings politics into the whole issue and that messes things up overall. - Government health care would decrease patient flexibilities. Before you start saying it would be more flexible, tell me if the government paid for everything under one plan, would you be able to get free eye surgery, breast implants, facial surgery, etc? Your probably saying, no because these things aren't needed. Well, what if you got in an accident and your face was damaged. Who decides what is needed and what is not? Sounds like a big headache to me! Since I really have no characters left. Good Luck!","Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple. Thanks for the welcome! I agree with your introduction. This is no debate about how the government spends money or how much it takes in. It is definitely about where the funds come from. I also agree with you on the points that a government must take in money and funds in order to ensure the normal continuance of society and that government is necessary for commerce in today's society. I even agree that if you are living day to day, you cannot afford to pay extra taxes that the wealthy can afford to pay. However, I disagree that the wealthy are more likely to keep their money in secret \"offshore accounts\" than spend it or invest it. This is a bad idea for a couple reasons: Firstly, there is no prospect for growth. Secondly, due to inflation, the money will continually be devalued over time at a rate of a couple of percent per year. I also disagree that commerce only benefits business owners and the super wealthy. The truth is that commerce exists because it helps both sides. It benefits the people who actually receive items that are useful to them from these establishments as well as the sellers, and if it did not, it would not exist. And above all, I disagree that there is anything \"simple\" about it. Right now, the people who struggle day to day are financially gouged by tax on necessities, and the 'wealthy' have to give up more of their money to pack the wound. It would be far better if all people were taxed equally on non necessities. It is generally understood that all people should have an opportunity to grow and improve their conditions. Why should we allow a system which by definition taxes economic progress and stunts that growth? I would much prefer life in a system which facilitates everyone's economic progression equally instead of limiting it after a certain point. Finally, I maintain that the wealthy do not usually become wealthy at the expense of others or \"society\", but rather become wealthy because they worked harder and smarter.","Universal Health Coverage The united states government cannot become an insurance company. Everyone is wants universal healthcare. if everyone gets insured, Great! But using the governments money is not an option. Right now, anyone can get healthcare, but instead of insurance companies paying the difference, the government does. If we create government agencies to insure people, we are not only paying to insure people, but we are paying to run the agencies themselves. Either way our government pays. Government based insurance doesnt solve the financial problems our current healthcare poses. Also, if everyone can get insurance from the government for dirt cheap prices, everyone will regardless of their standard of living. With that many people enrolled in the program and at such low prices, the government is continually gunna have to poor money into the program. It'll become a never ending money pit that we will never be able to repeal. In other words... an Economy Buster. We need to find ways to incourage people to invest in insurance, not give it to them at the governments expense. If nothing else, our current state gives people a greater incetive to move up in life. Finally, if the government gets THAT involved in health care, its gunna start passing laws that attack the prices. Though i agree the prices are too high, we cant cap them off via law. That WOULD be socialism, and socialism has never done anyone any good. Especially a people as wealthy as us. It only creates lazy people and very poor economies. Government funding of health care isn't socialism, but its a huge step toward socialism, and socialized Anything is gunna be bad for this country. I guess what im trying to say is this. Yes, health care costs way too much Yes, there are way too many people who cant afford basic health care Yes, its a national problem but No, we cant give them government money because that would be taking everyone down with them. We would solve one problem, but create a dozen more","Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life Response to Proposition's Counterargument against Effects on Economy","The economy was mans worst invention Your economy would never result in equality. Someone might be happy and content with two pairs of jeans, someone else isn't happy unless they have five, or ten. I'm perfectly happy with my $10 phone. Someone else wants the latest gadget today. I like shopping in second-hand bookstores, other people want an iPad. You might be happy with a trip to the lake, others want to jet set four times a year. Our wants and desires aren't equal. Also you're not accounting for celebrity or popularity. Which occupation would you rather talk to, the astronaut who went to the moon, or the guy who pumps your gas? Some people are just more interesting and fun to be around. Time is a resource, and people would give celebrities more resources to spend time with them. Should a doctor be paid the same as a carpenter? Yes, both jobs are important. However one requires a year of training, the other ten. Why would anyone work so hard to be a doctor, when they can get the same benefits by studying for only a year? If people aren't given incentive for hard work, then they won't work hard. If they are given incentives and rewards for hard work, then people work harder. There is great disparity in pay. I read a study that said a kindergarten teacher's value to the economy works out to be about $350,000 a year. Are kindergarten teachers paid that much? No. Should they be? Yes. Some jobs should have higher salaries, others less. But it is a supply and demand economy. Prices rise and fall based on demand. If everyone was paid the same, there would still not be equality. You also have to consider what people do with their money. Say we start over, and everyone makes $60,000 a year. Some people like to party, some like to shop, some like to travel, some like to own property, some like to invest, some like to save. Within a few years after starting over, disparity would quickly return. I do agree with you that there should be jobs for all, and that people should be able to make a livable wage. But we as a race will never be able to truly create an \"equal\" society. The reason why is because we are all different, complex creatures. We will never get rid of wants or desires.","A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea Two questions: 1) where does the money come from? 2) why not just reduce taxes by �2000 overall?","Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools There's no reason to treat this any different from the other basic needs like housing, food, water etc. and we still have to pay for those as well. Instead we should just make sure that the situation where there are people with too little money to even pay for these basic needs cannot occur, for example by paying decent unemployment benefits.","Utilitarianism is inherently unjust Your main argument is that laws are based on utilitarianism and laws are needed for society. First, I would argue that laws are not always based on what yields the most benefit, but what is morally right. For example, it would benefit the majority of America if we made it legal to steal from the top 2% of America. 98% of Americans would benefit. However, we do not consider it a moral action, so it is illegal. Also, there is a distinction between justice (as in pertaining to law) and justice (as in giving each their due). The legal judicial system does not always give people what they are due. And third, judicial laws are constantly changing, so they cannot be used as a criterion for moral actions. Now in response to your critiques of my arguments: 1. Basic laws are written to preserve safety, yes. But this does not mean that utilitarianism is the backbone of moral laws, or that utilitarianism is just. 2. A law for the greatest good disregards the small group. Slave laws followed Utilitarian logic. Even though a portion of the population was treated as less than human, the majority of the population benefited. Laws against murder are laws because of human worth, not because of utiliarianism. Another utilitarian action would be genocide of people without a job. It would mean less money spent on welfare and unemployment benefits. The government would have more money to give to the remaining 90% or so of Americans who have jobs. 3. Utilitarianism is always unjust (not giving people their due) because it holds that ends justify means. At its base, it accepts that a person's inherent worth can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. Whether the action is committed or not, the acceptance that human worth is not always the ultimate end denies people what they are due. Therefore, it is unjust.","Universal Health Coverage \"What about the people who work two jobs and can barely feed their families? What about all of the factory workers being laid off? What about the millions of unemployed Americans who cannot afford health care?\" -Im not saying they dont need it. They do. Ive already addressed that. What I'm saying is, How is it fair to those who have earned enough money to pay their own way that those who haven't win a free ride? \"This is the slippery slope argument, making a last comeback from the grave. I do not propose that we pay people's bills for them, nor does anybody. What I do propose is that we provide health insurance for all of our citizens, based on need. If you want a country example, look at the booming economies in Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, - Oh, that's right! The USA is the only developed country not to provide health care for those who can't afford it!\" - but thats just it!! you ARE proposing we pay everyone's bills. Need I remind you??? You said, \"I propose that it [the government] purchase insurance (at discount, because of the number of plans that it would purchase) to cover those who cannot afford\" insurance.\" Insurance is a bill. What makes it any different from paying their water bill? They still need water to survive. Furthermore, my point is that if you start giving away free money, IT WILL NEVER STOP. Also, all of the countries you listed do have universal healthcare. They all also have poor economies and more civil unrest than we do. The United States may not have univeral healthcare, but we have a thriving economy and a good work ethic. The reason for that??? We haven't submitted to socialistic views on citizenship. Our free-market economy continues to thrive because we have not given free money. We have not SPOILED our citizens and we should not start now. \"OK. Now who's proposing socialized medicine? How much would this cost? Where does the money come from? It's millions, maybe billions or trillions more than my plan. This creates a massive government bureaucracy, and I thought that conservatism was against massive government. Oh, pardon me.\" - Maintaining low quality clinics would not be any more than paying monthly fees for insurance until the end of time. It would be next to nothing to fund anyway. With the removal of Medicare, you could already almost fund it. You under estimate how much we pour into medicare every year. That tied onto your proposed tax repeals and outsider donations would easily cover those costs. Also, My plan is not by any stretch of the imagination socialism. It is quite the opposite. It leaves people insentive to move up without a government piggy-back. It encourages people to work harder for better things. Your plan just wants to ride through the streets on a giant bus throwing money out to the poor. Giving free money is socialism. Not encouraging people to work harder. I would like to emphasize the difference again My plan gives people who need it healthcare, but leaves plenty of incentive to move up. Your plan just gives everyone free money. How can you honestly say that mine is socialism and yours is not??? Giving people free healthcare, will lead to them want more free government giveaways. The more they whine, the more people give it to them. It is the first step down a road we DO NOT want to go down. Socialzed healthcare is NOT the answer, and your plan IS socialized healthcare.","The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 It seems my opponent has dropped the argument about people being smart about when to have kids. This being the case, it still stands then.Now, to move onto what my opponent has stated, I shall rebut or comment on every majort point:Re: Definition of povertyUsually oxfoddictionaries is reliable, but I really question that definition of the word poverty. What is it inferior to? If it is just inferior to anyone, then it could be said that everyone who is poorer than the richest person in the world is in poverty. That's the issue with that definition. it was commonly accepted that someone who can't afford their clothing, nutrition, and housing from their own assets would be considered impoverished.Right, the poverty threshold is what covers that. Someone who earns less than the threshold would be unable to afford those basic needs. I would like to point out that it would be basic clothing, housing, and food. Someone who spends exorbitantly on these items and can't afford it would not be in poverty. Someone who earns more than the threshold would be able to afford those basic items. Re: safety net programsI would prefer that the government did projects that created jobs, rather than just giving free money to people. The old proverb of give a man a fish, feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime comes to mind. Is it really helping someone in the long run to make them dependent on the government for their needs? I argue it is not. The government, instead, should be providing means in which a person can independently earn income for necessary items. There should be government programs that teach people how to become independent and earn their own money, rather than just giving hand outs. How can you argue it is better for a person to be dependent on the government rather than the government teaching them to be independent? For this reason I would argue there should not be safety net programs of the type we currently have. The safety net programs should be jobs that the governmetn offers. There's a ton of infrastructure improvement that needs to happen. Why not have the government employ those people who are needy instead? Additionally, I'd argue we need more schools in America, as there is an over-crowding classroom problem[4]. The government could also offer them jobs building these schools we need. There are always projects that the government needs done. Once the government builds these schools, they can offer them jobs as teachers. However, I would say that while they were working building the school, they should be given the education needed to become a teacher. The government could do a lot of things to create more jobs, and this is the alternative to safety net programs and the minimum wage in my opinion. BY allowing companies to pay wages at $7.25 per hour or lower, we are allowing companies to gain more profits and forcing the federal government to pick up the bill.The thing about companies gaining more profit is that it allows them to sell things at a lower price. Companies, to compensate for the minimum wage increase, will sell things at a higher price. So, while some people may be making more money, it will mean they have to pay more for things anyways. For example, this study of businesses in Seattle after the minimum wage increase there saw prices of goods rise substantially[5]. We would likely see the same effect nationwide if we had a minimum wage increase. Does it help the poor any if they are earning more, but have to spend more for basic needs? No.I know this has nothing to do with the federal government, but if you want to help the poor out, how about getting rid of sales taxes and gas taxes? Both are essentially regressive taxes as they affect the poor more than the wealthy. In addition, I would argue we should get rid of the social security tax. Immediately, the poor would have 12% more money because the government wouldn't be taking money out of their pay check. Social security could instead be paid for by the income tax, if we were to increase it on the wealthy. These solutions would be better than raising the minimum wage, because they wouldn't cause prices of things to go up, and getting rid of sales tax and gas tax would mean prices would go down. Additionally, if property tax was gone, that would also lower the rates of rent on apartments, which would help the poor even more. So, why not cut all of these taxes to make things affordable for the poor instead of raising the minimum wage? The government is the reason many things cost so much for the poor.Sources:[4] https://nces.ed.gov...[5] http://www.washington.edu...","The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all. While it may look good on paper, implementing a universal college for all program would be much less good in practice. There are two ways such a plan could be paid for; the federal government or a tax on the wealthy. The Government does not have the money to implement such a program, and robbing the wealthy is unfair. If, like Pro, you believe that \"Our country has always been capable of providing free college due to our excess in wealth.\", I encourage you to look at the Federal Debt Clock. http://www.usdebtclock.org... The clock shows that our federal debt is over 19 trillion dollars. Bernie Sanders' website says that the proposed plan for universal college would cost around 75 billion dollars per year. Can you imagine adding 75 billion dollars every single year to our federal debt? The results would be catastrophic. However, there is another idea, attributed to Bernie Sanders. This idea involves taxing the wealthy the amount of money it would cost for all the youth in the country to go to college. Why should the rich have to pay 75 trillion dollars a year for other people to go to college? \"They must pay their fair share\" is the usual response. However, these people worked very hard to get to the economic class they are in, and they have worked exceptionally hard to run their companies, creating jobs for Americans. This higher tax on the rich would be unfair, and amounts to legal thievery. Is there a problem with the college system? Yes there is. But burdening the federal budget or robbing the wealthy to make college free is not the way to go. http://www.usdebtclock.org... https://berniesanders.com...","Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. My opponent's R3 argument revolves around inconsistency. He maintains that people who advocate for universal health care should also be in favor of universal food, clothing, shelter, etc. Now while he brings up some good points in terms of discussion, he has very little merit in terms of DEBATE. This dialog is not solely about the exchanging of ideas, but about proving and disproving the resolution. As Con, my beliefs are irrelevant -- I simply must explain why people who may be for UHC should *NOT* also be in favor of universal food, shelter and clothing. My opponent has affirmed his very own inconsistency by continuously pointing out his reasoning as to why universal food, shelter, clothing AND health care are all unfavorable. Therefore, Pro is suggesting that instead of just promoting ONE \"bad\" idea (universal health care), liberals should be promoting FOUR bad agenadas. How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Thus if you are a fiscal Conservative and AGAINST universal health care, chances are you would also be against universal food, shelter and clothing... so why would you want people advocating for those things? Especially at a time like this, where it's likely that more liberal agendas will be taken into consideration now that the Bush regime is coming to an end. Therefore if you are in opposition to universal food, shelter and clothing, you should vote Con, as you agree that those \"nutsos\" who advocate for UHC shouldn't also be pushing for more universal provisions. To those that DO support universal health care, you shouldn't also support universal food, shelter and clothing and here's why: it would turn us into a communist nation. Granted Pro has used the \"why shouldn't the government provide the even more important things in life\" logic, but as I've pointed out, even if food, clothing and shelter ARE greater necessities than health care (which they usually are), it doesn't mean that we should resort to being a communist nation, as it would hurt us - the United States - economically and politically both domestically and globally. So to re-cap, it is possible that we provide UHC that grants us BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR A FRACTION OF THE COST. This benefit would apply to everyone regardless of economic status. Supporting this one notion in particular does NOT mean that you should support communism and all that comes with it (social repercussions, for one). Pro has not provided one reason as to why you SHOULD support communism, except to say, \"Why not?\" or \"it could be easily argued they they should go all the way\" in referring to providing universal relief... except Pro didn't explain WHY 'they' should go all the way. Essentially, Pro has been advocating for communism yet does not support this reasoning other than to say \"it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important.\" I disagree. I say that if providing universal goods for all of the basic life needs would make us communist, then screw it -- we don't wanna go down that path for innumerable reasons (most of which have little if any relevance to this debate). However if it's possible that health care is provided WITHOUT having to be communist - or without having to raise taxes through the roof - then I'm all for it. It's as simple as that. Pro has attempted to skew my words, the facts, and provide misguided reasoning to get you to see his side. For instance, \"I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. \" Here Pro leaves that bit about pooling resources in (parenthesis) as if it's a little side note, when really, it goes against everything I have been arguing. I have said repeatedly that I do not believe in the US being communist, and yet Pro accused me of supporting universal goods... even though... I am against those things as Con...? Hmm, okay. The truth is that I *would* be in favor of providing universal food, shelter and health care IF it was of no expense to me or any other of my fellow Americans (regardless of how rich they were). However that would be pretty impossible and could never really be an option, so why bring it up? Pro was attempting to present me as a Communist by saying \"if we could afford it\" I would support it. That's not true at all. I'm very much aware that if we pooled our resources together we could certainly afford those things. However I am not advocating for us to pool our resources together and either are those who are in favor of UHC. By supporting UHC, you wouldn't be asking for a great increase in taxes (IN FACT IT WOULD SAVE YOU MONEY), whereas providing all of those universal goods would be very expensive AND require the pooling of funds... so AGAIN, I am not in favor of those things. Next my opponent attempts to argue that health care is far more easily accessible and affordable than the reality. First of all, his assumption that people are choosing to spend their money on cell phones or car paymemts is a blatant lie. I've already addressed in previous rounds how this assumption is unsupported and uncited, most likely because it is untrue in most cases. If Pro wanted to argue otherwise, he should have done so with factual evidence instead of just his own two cents about something he probably knows very little about. Second of all, even if that were true, Pro is ignoring the fact that UHC would also be cheaper (and of better quality) for those people who are already paying for their own private health insurance! I would also like to point out that the cost of health insurance is far more expensive than the $80 Pro claims it to be, at least where I live. It's also particularly convenient that he chose young people for his example, whereas in reality, it's the Baby Boomers - the elderly - that are suffering and paying incredibly high insurance rates (much higher than $80! Ha!) and cannot afford quality health care. The key word here is quality, as even those who can afford it are often subjected to crappy policies that cover little to nothing and are sometimes pointless or not worth it. But anyway, to re-cap, Pro is the one being inconsistent here: he continously explained why universal anything would be a bad idea, but goes on to state why people should advocate for not just one but all of these things...? By his logic, you should not support one and not the other. Well a lot of people support the one regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, so if he really thinks these things are all a bad idea, he should not logically conclude people support 4 bad ideas instead of just 1. Now if he's only saying that supporting one and not the other doesn't make any sense, again he is wrong: people should not support universal food, shelter and clothing because it would turn us into a communist nation (and Pro hasn't explained why that wouldn't be a bad thing). Supporting these things would also significantly raise our taxes, whereas supporting UHC would not. It would in fact be CHEAPER and BETTER QUALITY insurance. Pro has not disagreed with this. So right here, we can see how there is no inconsistency, but simple logic in supporting UHC. For instance, I now have health insurance, but UHC would improve the quality and cost of health care for all. Charging tax payers for other universal needs would NOT benefit me or many others. Therefore I - a supporter of UHC - do not support those other policies, and have successfully negated the resolution.","Universal health care is a legitimate \"burden\" on the tax payer. People pay for public utilities such as road and people pay for education as well. But do people who don't drive recklessly ask for money back when roads are damaged? Do people who send their children to private school ask for all their money back? We place this burden on the state because of equality of opportunity. No man should be denied the right to live his life.","Is the Right Wing Better Than the Left Wing I would like to argue your point that all three are key strengths in the free market system. Yes, a little welfare is fine. One trillion dollars of it? Not so much. I like how you referred to minimum wage as a \"living wage\". In all honesty a person does not need $10.25/hr. to live. People are doing just fine on the current one. Everyone would like to think that raising the minimum wage is such a wonderful and righteous thing to do. In fact, it would damage much more than it would help. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- Why should the government pay for your health care? Look at the countries you have provided in your little story abouy Walter White. Each of the economies is going to Hell in a handbasket. This is partiallly attributed to each providing health care to their citizens. It's funny you should bring up this fact. The only place I could find talking about the link between health care and mortgage default was SSRN. This is not exactly unbiased information, considering the whole organization was bulit upon how \"good\" social security is. Distributing universal health care has many downsides that you conviently side-stepped. Yes, it would dissuade people from clinging to low-end jobs. However, with universal health care comes great taxation. Especially on the small business owners. The small business owners happen to be the mostly the ones offering jobs that aren't considered low-end. if the small business owners get hit hard by the new tax, they will not keep offering those jobs. Thus leading to higher unemployment and fewer quality jobs. This point furthur points to the current incompatece of the Obama administration. If they facts you present are true, then why doesn't Obama (an undoubtly left-sided president) revoke the ACA? Your facts don't solidify the benefits of universal health care, they point to Obamacare's failure. WELFARE- The most overused word in the welfare arguement is opportunity. Why on Earth should a hard working business owner pay for a lazy bum's nessecites, when the bum isn't making a solid effort to find a job. Take Star Parker, an ex-welfare recepiant's, words as an example. \"The welfare system enslaves the poor on a subsidized plantation.\" She is 100% right. Look through the eyes of the welfare recipient. Why should they get up and find work if Uncle Sam is going to send them a check twice a month. They're the ones not taking the initiative to get a job, not recieving unequal opportunity. If a government is to cut back welfare spending, this is the idea. The market provides people with equal opportunity, some just don't take the innitiative. Free market capitalism has lead to the highest standard of living, for the mosft number of people, since the history of mankind. Liberalism is based on \"Robin Hood\" ideology; Take from the rich and give to the poor. Liberalism limits the upward progression of the masses. Why would anyone look for work if they recieve a check on the first and fifteenth of every month. A relocation of cash only reduces the already dim initiative of the 'less fortunate\" MINIMUM WAGE- Why on earth would someone doing fine on thier minimum wage salary suddenly get paid almost a 50% increase. They are doing a job that most likely is unskilled labor. (i. e. McDonalds) They are doing a job that pays quite handsomly for the amount of training and experience required. The more you pay a worker, the less you can afford to pay other workers. If you pay too much, you can;t fill other jobs. That is the main problem with a raise in the minimum wage. Unemployment will take a turn for the worst if the minimum wage increases, only putting more people on government subsidized programs. Do CEOs get payed a lot? Yes. Is it too much? Probably. However, the people working at McDonalds and the CEO of McDonalds have very different workloads.The CEO deserves to get payed many times the salary of the cashier. You seem to be preaching a less harsh punisment for petty crime. Petty crime that's left alone can grow into something much more malicious. I have upheld burden of proof that right wing governments are far more beneficial to a country than it's counterpart.","Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life. Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.","The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care TheLibertarian has failed to respond to any of my points or ideas; which are, in brief: 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance. Thank you for reading.","The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. First, parameters. Universal Health care: any system of health care that the federal government pays for for all citizens Other than that, I think we're fine. If you feel other parameters are necessary, let me know. My case: The question that is important in this situation is: \"What is the purpose of a government?\" The answer to this question is that a government is supposed to protect the rights of the people. The people form governments to escape the so-called state of nature, in which they are completely free, but their rights have no protection. In a state of nature, one would have all the rights in the world, but they would have no protection. One's right to own property becomes useless when it can easily be taken away by a corrupt individual. So, governments are instituted to protect people's basic rights, limiting freedom as necessary so that the government can ensure that the people have basic rights. With this in mind, it becomes very clear that in no way is the federal government obligated to provide universal health care. Universal health care is in no way necessary in order for us to protect rights, and funding it requires raising taxes, and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms. Because of this, I have but one contention. Contention 1: Government health care is not necessary for the protection of rights, and therefore should not be provided. The purpose of universal health care is to help those who cannot afford health insurance pay for health care. People obviously do have the right to live healthily, and the government must ensure that they can exercise this right, sure. But, universal health care goes far beyond this point. There is no need to give the 90% who can afford health insurance the benefits, nor is it necessary to foot the whole health bill for those who can pay for at least some of the costs. Paying for health care in the form of welfare, that is, only giving people what they need is much more appropriate, so, in short, universal health care is the wrong idea.","Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions As I believe universal healthcare should be implemented in the United States, I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments. Jumping right in, my opponent says that Universal healthcare should not be implemented because of cost, yet shortly afterwards admits that it could be paid for. If we CAN pay for something that will improve our country and the happiness of our citizens, something that I believe should be a basic human right, then I believe we absolutely should. My opponent also says that there are other healthcare systems that are better and more cost effective; if so, please tell me more about them, because I think Universal healthcare is a good system that is most likely our best option. If you know of a better system, let us know more about it. Furthermore, a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy. The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030. What that means is that the income in a typical American family would be about $10,000 higher annually, and the unemployment rate would go down by about 2%, or 500,000 people every year (1). And that's only with a decrease of 1.5%! It would save the average person money on healthcare, bolster their health, and thus make them more productive workers. It also helps reduce \"job lock\", and encourages small businesses and entrepreneurs by \"leveling the playing field\". For many people, their only access to healthcare is as a benefit through their job, forcing them to either stay or lose their coverage. With universal healthcare, it is much easier for people to choose a career they actually like, or start their own business, which helps money flow in our economy (2). My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as Donald Trump should not have healthcare provided for them because they can pay for it themselves. However, the average taxpayer would not be paying for Donald Trump's healthcare, as Donald Trump would theoretically be paying MORE taxes than them, and that extra money would help Universal Healthcare work. A homeless unemployed man can't pay for his own healthcare, but Donald Trump can easily pay for healthcare for dozens of people, and if his taxes are already higher, he is helping insure other people, and healthcare should not be denied to anyone. To address my opponents' concern that Universal healthcare would create a conflict of interests, I will just say that I am obviously arguing for a Universal Healthcare system done right, not simply a corrupt replacement of our current system. Of course if it is not implemented properly, such as in the scenarios my opponent outlined, then the results could be less than ideal. But if implemented carefully and properly, as I believe it should and could be, than these scenarios would all be avoided, and the payoff would be huge. My opponent says that health is more than just having access to a doctor, that the Americans should change their lifestyle, and that the government should regulate food and the environment. While this is certainly true and we agree on this point, it is irrelevant to this argument. Just because having Universal Healthcare won't magically solve all of the health problems in America does not mean that it should not be implemented, and even if Americans all managed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle and our environmental problems were all solved, people would still need access to western medicine or prescription medication on certain occasions. There is a reason that life expectancy goes up alongside the advance of medical science. The government could easily implement a Universal Healthcare plan AND do more to fix the problems with our environment and food supply. As for the actual implementation of an effective Universal Healthcare plan, yes it might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Every other major western country has implemented a Universal Healthcare plan of some sort, and I believe that if EVERY OTHER similar country has done it, we Americans can probably manage someway or another. Obamacare is an example of a healthcare plan that has many problems, and I agree that it could have been implemented much more effectively, but the fact is, it HAS been implemented, and an improved system could easily enough be put it its place. My opponent also brings up Bernie Sanders; while this debate is not about the election, you cannot say that a candidate can't win when they won 8 out of 9 of the last primaries. And that is a perfect example of how something difficult can still work. However, the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. So for the sake of this argument, we should both assume that proper implementation is indeed possible. Now I will present some of my own arguments for Universal Healthcare: I think that in our economy, all people should ethically be given access to healthcare, and that it should be a basic human right. Not everyone can afford healthcare, but most people need it at some time. Making people choose to either pay thousands of dollars to insurance companies that give them limited benefits, or die of disease is not morally right in my opinion. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies have become much too overpriced and have too much leverage over people, given that their services are often essential. As I said before, America is one of the only advanced western civilizations that STILL does not offer Universal Healthcare, and most countries that do, such as Sweden or Denmark, have happier average citizens. For example, in Denmark, citizens are about 77% happy, and in the United States, only 70% (3). One of the main reasons for this is the difference in our healthcare systems. Given the money that Americans already spend on taxes, we should absolutely get Universal Healthcare coverage without having to pay anything more. Money could be relocated from other areas where tax dollars are spent is excess, such as military spending. So a good Universal Healthcare plan would be essentially free (it would still be paid for by taxes, true, but the amount people are taxed would not increase), and it would greatly benefit our citizens. A properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would boost our economy, increase the health, lifespan and happiness of Americans, and generally improve our country, all without costing the average American anything more than what they already pay in taxes, bringing us up to par with other advanced western countries. And I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that! (1) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (2) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (3) http://acculturated.com...","should rich people pay higher taxes I'm fighting for lower taxes for all Americans. Which is why I say repeal the 16th amendment. Nobody should have to give a portion of their paycheck to the government. You make these claims about the rich paying next to nothing, yet you provide zero sources to support your claims. I understand the flexibility but I do not believe that a successful businessman needs to pay a higher percentage of their income to the government than the average american. Yes Bill Gates can make due with 71 billion instead of 72 billion but there is no reason he should have to give up a billion dollars to the federal government just because he is successful. What you are advocating is socialism, spreading weath around. Taking from the right and giving to the poor. Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money.","Basic income tax should be abolished Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society","let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient.It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available). In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned. My arguments are:The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care. Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place.Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...","The United States should implement a flat tax, regardless of income. Hi there! Welcome to Debate.org, I can see this is your first debate. The law that you are proposing is unfair because if a person earns 10k a year, for that person to pay 2.5k in taxes is a lot of money and that person may have problems to buy food or to pay the doctor, but for a person who earns 10M, 2.5M is a much comfortable sacrifice inspire of paying more (he still can pay the doctor). From the point of view of the government, a flat tax that every one can pay may be insufficient to maintain itself, not that governments have the duty to preserve the happiness of their citizens by redistributing the wealth, making sure they don't suffer from hunger of illness, they can get education, etc. There is no doubt that the USA government is dysfunctional in many aspects, and this law is likely to make it even more dysfunctional by collecting less taxes and damaging the re-distribution. By the way, a flat tax means everyone pays the same no mater what is your income (but we will not debate about this). pd. I would prefer is you replay by making a youtube video.","2) More economic incentives to find a job Our plan will create greater incentives for the unemployed to find a job. This is good for state and society because the unemployed will faster become independent from external support and start working and making their own contributions through taxes. Such effect would lead to smaller unemployment rate in the future. First, the unemployed will have an economic incentive to find a job. All people have different consumption preferences, which means they need different goods to satisfy their needs. Under status quo, the unemployed receive a monetary benefit; as money is a universal means of exchange, people prefer to spend it according to their preferences, not the state's or society's. There are cases when the unemployed sacrifice some of their basic needs for another good - it could be a harmful one, such as drugs, as well as a 'neutral' one, such as an MP3-player. They conclude that spending money on things other than basic needs will be more beneficial for them (i.e. bring them more satisfaction and happiness); they make an economic choice and allocate resources available to them, as any other member of society would do with her salary, scholarship, etc. If our plan was implemented, the unemployed would still be able to sustain their living, but they would be deprived of the opportunity to spend money freely, i.e. on things other than basic needs. In other words, they wouldn't be able to make the same unrestricted economic choice as other members of society. Under status quo, limited amount of money is the only constraint for the unemployed; under our plan, they will also face the limited amount of spending options. Saving money or substituting one good with another wouldn't help them purchase desirable goods; thus, the unemployed will be incentivized to find a job to get rid of this spending option constraint.","The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.","It would be much simpler and fairer There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.","Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life response to proposition's counterargument against freedom of choice","Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System. I affirm the resolution that the USFG should create a universal health care system similar to Britain's NHS. I believe that this will lead to a healthier society, a more productive work force, and a more stable economy. With this plan, people will not have to work as much to pay off outrages medical bills. Since they will not be working so much, they will be better workers at their current jobs; \"A Happy employee is a good employee.\" Lastly, with less people in debt, the keynesian savings ratio of 90/10 (spend 90% of the income and save 10%) can find its way back into the fiscal society.","Universal Basic Income Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument.","basic healthcare is a right everyone has a right to take what they need to survive from the earth, the resoures. food, healthcare, the basics. when we create property rights and exclude people from resources, we have to make up for it in our laws. people may or may not be able to afford healthcare under a free market. therefore, unless we're willing to give people land and property and a way to make ends meet, the government is obligated to ensure a basic to everyone.","Universal health care would amount to welfare for the uninsured. The government should not create a health care system that is aimed primarily at helping the poor and uninsured. As such, it becomes merely another wealth-transfer program.","People Need a License to Live 400 dollars sounds sort of reasonable. I don't think we're going to renew those things every three years, though. A person's right to live should not be based on their income and net worth, that's a direct violation of the Constitution, which clearly states that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights do not cost anything, they are allowed to everyone regardless of money. I suggest you specify what's in this \"common sense\" test. I don't think people should be killed if they're stupid, I believe that anybody can be educated. I think that most people can speak their primary language fluently, unless they're mute, in which case they should not be killed. I also think that we should not kill people because they have any mental or physical defects. Many people are handicapped and would not be able to pass the fitness test. Stephen Hawking is a genius. You are sick to think that we should kill people if they have a disability. That is one philosophy you share with the Fuhrer- he strongly supported a euthanasia plan and dumped handicapped people from rooftops, not worrying about their screams. Also, kids are not going to work in mines for 100 hours every year. You are batty.","Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! So let me get this straight, you HONESTLY expect the readers in here to AGREE with you that it's OKAY that MOST employees who make LESS than $15/hour do NOT get offered ANY benefits! No Sick Pay No Holiday Pay No Vacation Pay No Disability Pay no Life Insurance, no Health Insurance, no Dental Insurance, no Optical Insurance, No Perks, No Discounts, No Retirement Benefits No 401k, no Pension!!!! You are CRAZY if you think MOST Americans think thats \"ok\". Also WHAT \"false\" information do you CLAIM that I made? THAT statement I just made is COMMON SENSE and EVERY poll EVER taken will AGREE with me!!! EVERYONE gets SICK, EVERYONE will eventually get SOME form of Cancer if they live long enough, EVERYONE NEEDS their Teeth Cleaned every 6 months, EVERYONE NEEDS a YEARLY phyiscal exam to make sure they have no diseases or illnesses!! Again EVERYONE NEEDS healthcare or else they will IMMEDIATELY go into BANKRUPTCY with ANY medical condition that they acquire!!! And the people who NEED health insurance/care the MOST are the people who make MINIMUM WAGE! Just because SOME People are SELFISH and HOSTILE towards the poor and very low income that make SO LITTLE that they are eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid does NOT mean that is RIGHT or FAIR or JUST behavior, it's SELFISH behavior. By the way EVERYTHING you are sharing is from CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN leaning sources. The Affordable Care Act (NOT \"obamacare, that name is RACIST) helped TENS of MILLIONS of Americans GET insurance who BEFORE were NOT offered insurance by their employer and others who were DENIED coverage because of Pre-existing conditions! EVERY FIRST world country ON THE PLANT OFFERS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for ALL of their citizens EXCEPT the US!!!!!! HOW do you expect people making FIVE to TEN dollars an hour to AFFORD healthcare on THEIR income on the PRIVATE market? MOST of us have SOME type of Pre Existing condition, so that means HIGH RISK insurance that costs HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of dollars. HOW do someone making MINIMUM WAGE afford healthcare WITHOUT government assistance? THEY DONT!!! \"hard work\" has NOTHING to do with what happens at work. It's IF your supervisor or manager LIKES you which determines the SIZE of your yearly raises and IF or WHEN you are given a promotion, WAKE UP to how EMPLOYMENT WORKS. I work in HR and know EVERYTHING about the realities of employment and promotions and raises.","Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! \"This is AMERICA where you can do WHAT you want WHERE you want WHEN you want.\" Really? So why can't employers pay entry-level employees less and deny them employee benefits until they prove themselves? I think you should change that statement to 'this is America where you can do what you want where you want when you want as long as it does not contradict my opinion'. \"YOU would only COMPLAIN that I'm using LIBERAL sources anyway.\" How would you know? At this point, it's too late for you to provide a source anyway, but I would've looked at any source - liberal or not. \"YOUR resources are all CONSERVATIVE sources.\" Actually, one's unbiased and the other is bordering on socialist. I used Cornell Law University for an (unbiased) interpretation of the tenth amendment, and I used a poll from an article from a website advocating for universal healthcare - a socialist concept. \"FACTS are FACTS!\" What facts? You just typed your opinion each round (no sources) and capitalized every other word. \"the BOTTOM get paid AWFUL wages with NO benefits.\" So why doesn't this 'bottom' find a job that pays well? Why doesn't this 'bottom' start their own business, or at least something part-time on the side? I doubt that this 'bottom' you refer to is stupid. \"almost EVERYONE can agree THAT is WRONG.\" Who is 'almost everyone'? Do you have a poll to prove it? Some sort of study conducted by a credible organization? Anything? Or are you just assuming that 'almost everyone' sides with you because 'almost everyone' shares your mentality, your beliefs, and your opinions? Look, I know you mean well and you want to help the so-called 99%, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Thanks for this debate and I hope we can do it again sometime.","Classic Robert Gauntlet Tournament: The current tax system should be replaced by the fair tax. Thank you YYW for your prompt response last round. I'm going to attempt to quote portions of my opponent's arguments which are representative I larger portions of his argument. I'll elaborate on the quote when necessary. Impact to Individuals \"It would go equally to those with zero income and those who buy nothing in the course of a month, as well as to billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.\" By implication, the \"prebate\" proposed to correct for FT's inherent regressiveness amounts to the creation of a \"national welfare program\" \" It's funny that Warren Buffett is brought up here. Warren Buffett is commonly quoted as saying it's unfair his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him. This plan would actually fix those loopholes Buffett uses to avoid paying as much as his secretary. The prebate wouldn't amount to a national welfare. One of the reasons for the rebate ( besides providing a progressive tax element) is to insure nobody pays taxes on basic necessities. It doesn't matter if it's Bill Gates or a family living below the poverty level. Nobody should have to pay the government for the most basic stuff they need to survive. The prebate just happens to be the fairest and most economical way to insure nobody has to pay to live. Right now a family living at the poverty level pays 22 cents on every dollar they spend on imbedded taxes. This isn't even taking into account FICA social security etc. coming out of their payroll check. Under the FT plan, they would pay Zero percent. I repeat. Exempting people from paying taxes on basic necessities isn't welfare. It's just good policy. \"there is essentially no relationship between the rebate and the cost of living\" Actually there is. The prebate is based off of what somebody spends at poverty level. Poverty level spending is a cost of living index. The prebate does more than the current tax system to make sure families don't get taxed on basic necessities. The 22 percent imbedded tax is no longer there for poverty level spending. \"Even still, FT's revenue neutrality rests on the erroneous assumption that \"no matter how large a family's income, 100% of it is consumed every year,\" which is not the case. In reality, the percentage of a person's income being consumed by expenses falls as income rates rise.\" The FT revenue neutrality uses no such assumption. The plan exempts used goods from being taxed. Which is a key indicator that it isn't assuming 100% of income is taxed. Not to mention 100% of income not being used for tax exempt things, such as used cars, used houses, thrift shop purchases etc.. One of the attributes of the plan often promoted by FT proponents, is the fact that savings and investments will be untaxed. These are things not included in the calculations used to determine if it was revenue neutral. Even if we forget about what I just stated, money earned is typically spent at some point. If the millionaire doesn't spend his money then his unappreciative children or grandchildren will blow his money after he dies. Hell Paris Hilton isn't even waiting for her dad to die to blow his money. \"By implication, were FT was implemented, however, retirees who supplement their income with savings accumulated during a time when personal income was taxed would in effect be subject to double taxation\" This is only during the adjustment phase, and remember the prices already include an imbedded tax, so they are double taxed anyway. If you take away that 22% imbedded tax, add in the 23% fair tax and take into consideration the prebate than retirees are actually coming out ahead. Let's not forget retirees actually are triple taxed in the current system anyway. They get the tax on investments, typically taken out immediately or upon withdrawing. They also are responsible for corporate taxes because they're share holders, plus they pay that imbedded tax. I'll take double taxation over triple taxation any day. \"the FT's implementation would disproportionally harm young workers in the process of establishing their livelihoods as they purchase first cars, homes and pay for childcare.\" Most young workers just starting out would buy used homes and cars. These are things exempt from the fair tax. As far as child care is concerned, the imbedded taxes would be removed from that and a lot of subsidies already in place to help families afford child care would remain in place. There would be minimal to no impact on these individuals. \"an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower and middle incomes.\" Nope, even if Uncle Sam isn't taxing your paycheck, you still pay that 22% imbedded tax and with the prebate that would kill any taxes you paid on products up to the poverty level. So in reality poor people would pay zero taxes as opposed to the 22% imbedded tax and the payroll tax. Faulty Economic Logic \". The reality is that you can't have both gains in post-tax income and depreciating prices once embedded taxes are vacated,\" That's just a misunderstanding of what FT proponents are saying. Once the FT is implemented prices would immediately increase by the 30%. Obviously companies will try not to reduce prices once the tax is implemented, so they can easily keep their profit margin. However once their competitors start making market share grabs, the price will settle back to what it originally was before the FT was implemented. Incomes should remain the same. However the prebate when factored in would mean that less of your money will go to pay taxes. The FT is dangerous \"what is there to prevent a [federal] income tax from being from being imposed after a national sales tax has been enacted?\" Nothing! There is actually systems in place to insure this doesn't happen here is a quote from the following website.http://www.fairtax.org... \"No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. Moreover, concurrent with the repeal of the income tax, a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and prohibiting an income tax will be pushed through Congress for ratification by the states (filed as HJR 16 in the 110th Congress).\" So this the FT has a companion bill that always goes to vote with it. If a fairtax got implemented, we wouldn't end up with some 2 headed snake. \"Similarly, due to the increased transactional costs the FT would impose on state and local government, it is entirely foreseeable that the FT would actually necessitate states increasing their income tax rates just to achieve revenue neutrality. \" This isn't true either. The fairtax actually doesn't require states to collect it on the federal governments behalf. If states do collect it they will be paid a portion of the taxes collected to make up for the cost of collecting it. http://www.fairtax.org... I actually did this argument at the last minute. I hope this rushed first draft is easy to read and comprehend.","Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. Those were very nice arguments in favor of universal health care. But my point was that the same (and even stronger) argument could be made for universal food, shelter, water, transportation and clothing. Additionally, who deserves to live without the ability to communicate? So I guess a universal cell phones could also be well argued. But that's beside the point. Most of your argument had nothing to do with reconciling the inconsistency I cited. Health care falls below other human needs in degree of necessity, yet health care is the only need being called for by the left to be provided UNIVERSALLY by the government. In your defense you did not dodge the inconstancy completely. You did mention that some government programs provide food, shelter and clothing to the poor. But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally. So your examples still do not explain away the inconsistency in singling out health care as the one and only private service that should be socialized. A government that provided all of lives top necessities universally to its citizens would closely resemble a large commune-- therefore my reference to communism. In summary, you have not successfully argued against my point that if the univeral health care supporters were consistent they would support government providing all other basic human needs which are equally as or more important. You said yourself you don't even consider health care a necessity. So which is it? Are universal health care proponents blatantly inconsistent, or are they just trying to scoop up the freebie currently offered while they wait for universal food, shelter and clothing to hit the ballot?","The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare I affirm the resolution that the United States ought to establish Universal Healthcare. This will be a values based debate there for my value [premise] for the round is societal welfare. Because when promoting and allowing Universal healtcare to a population it allows people to get a basic need that is no longer based on income. It allows the moral obligation as stated by the word ought in the resolution to also be fulfilled. My value criterion is Healthcare Equality. Based off of the word ' ought ' stated in the resolution , It denotes that there is a moral obligation. In this instance there is a obligation to serve people and allow them the right to health and well-being. As for societal welfare this can allow people to be healthier , and increase lifespans. Contention 1 : The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being. When people have healthcare that is good people are at a lesser risk for diseases that people with poor healthcare do and due to this , it is a given. In the current system , the more money you have the more efficient and comprehensive the healthcare you recieve. It has been proven that people who make $100,000.00 dollars a year will actually live longer than people who make $45,000.00 A year due to the inequalities in care. This alone has been examined here [ http://blogs.wsj.com... ] in this quote \"In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest. 6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years.\" This alone makes it quite evident that over the course of 20 years , the disparity has actually gotten worse socio-economically. By establishing a system of universal healthcare we can bridge the socioeconomic disparity or decrease the disparity by very sizeable margin. \" A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.\" Further examination shows that Macau ( China S.A.R ) , Japan , Andorra , San Marino , Hong Kong ( China S.A.R ) France , Switzerland , Sweden , Australia , Iceland , Canada , Italy , Monaco , Liechtenstein , Spain , and Norway all have higher life expectancies than the US and that is 13 of the 41 that rank above the United States in life expectancy. Most of these countries , Especially European ones and Japan , have a universal healthcare system of the sort that makes sure everyone is ensured and given medical care. Contention 2: The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting societal welfare. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal healthcare we are not promoting societal welfare which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. By supporting the moral obligation we can bring in a equality in healthcare that can improve lifespans , improve governmental accountability for it's people , follow a moral obligation , and promote societal welfare . For all of the stated above , I urge you must affirm.","Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life 3) More social incentive to find a job","Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life Vouchers for Basics of Life would Exacerbate the Economy","The Negative Income Tax Thank you Olark for accepting, and as you said: may the best win. One of the main reasons why I support a negative income tax is that it's a very cheap and yet effective way to end poverty. My alibi is the \"Mincome\" project that was conducted back in the 70's in the 2 towns in Manitoba, Canada; the town of Dauphin and Winnipeg: http://america.aljazeera.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://basicincome.org.uk... Those below the fixed poverty line received a monthly cheque that allowed them to survive. In the beginning, the researchers predicted that this would encourage people to be lazy and that it would cost a lot of money. But in the end, none of the above turned out to be true. From those who benefited from this project, only pregnant mothers and students worked substantially less. This by the way, resulted in a higher number of students graduating. Also hospitalization and domestic abuse went down. The project started in 1975 but was ended in 1979, when a centre-right government came to power. For many years the results of this project have been forgotten, until a few years ago it caught the attention of Prof. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba. Now you might say that that these were small towns and that such a project couldn't work on a nation-wide level and that the people of Winnipeg and Dauphin feared that this project would end some day. Well for the nation-wide thing, I don't know to be honest. It has never been tested on such a large scale. But \"I don\"t find the \"temporary program\" argument very compelling. If people are irresponsible, will they really project four years into the future to decide how to behave?\" (quote from Prof. Evelyn Forget) Contrary to most basic income models, the negative income tax, would only give the amounted of money needed to the people who need it. That's why it would be a cheap way to de facto implement a basic income. There have also been other basic income (BI) experiments, like in Otjivero, Namibia and in Uganda, India and even In the US: http://www.spiegel.de... http://usbig.net... https://www.opendemocracy.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Namibian project also caught my attention for the following reasons: In 2 years, -the percentage of people living below the poverty line went from 76 to 36% -the percentage of under-nourished children went from +50% to less than 10% -the percentage of young adults graduating went from 60 to 90% -crime went down significantly Another interesting project is \"Bolsa familia\" in Brazil. Basically it's a negative income tax for poor families IF they send their kids to School: http://web.worldbank.org... As for the BI initiative in Switzerland, I'm crossing my fingers since I live there ;) It would be really useful for me since in a few years I will be going to University.","basic healthcare is a right I will agree that is is a right of humanity to take what is needed to survive and that has become hard for people to do today due to population. Due to this population increase there are stories and markets that supply our needs to survive however healthcare should not be a basic right and if it were, it would be deadly to the society it was introduced.We see it right now in America where everyone is already or being forced to have healthcare, the average family pays about $16,000 a year.* The average family income falls in between $50,000-60,000.* This high healthcare cost is due to everyone being forced to have healthcare, even those who do not need it, the cost is high because completely healthy people are forced to pay for those who can't afford it. If healthcare were to be a basic right as it is becoming in America the cost of $16,000 per average family would go up drastically and due to the flood of immigrants, who are making a new life and can not be expected to pay anything, and the rise of poverty would add strain to the economy that would break it in the end. Some would retort that the government is there to distribute money to help the poor and underprivileged, raising the income of a family, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare cost. I put forth this question, \"Where does this money come from?\" If the government is giving money to the lower classes where does the money to do so come from? It comes from one of two sources, one source is that the government prints from the bank. That brings problems with itself in the form of inflation, the more a government prints money the more the value of the money goes down. An example would be Germany in 1921 After World War 1. Germany under war debts turned to printing money to pay it's debts off but the repercussions were traumatic to the country as at one point 1 US dollar equaled 800 German Marks. * Of course the more favored way is to tax the upper echelon for the money needed to give to lower class. Although there lies the poison apple that many countries are biting today. If one's country puts a heavy tax on the class that is sustaining the economy such as Walmart, Target, Ford, Apple, Xbox, and the \"1%\" that make all the money and provide all our needs to survive than those businesses and people would be making an income equal to a middle class family but still trying to support their businesses and slowly but surely the business would die off. Plus those working hard in the middle class and being taxed to death for the sake of the poor at one point would say, \"Screw this if I am working hard to make less than those who don't work than I would rather not work and get the benefits.\" This would led to a degenerate culture hellbent on playing the system to get more benefits and money till it breaks. A culture who tries to make everyone have the same standard of living by causing others to fall no matter what it is, whether it is healthcare, income level, or by giving different tax rates for different class levels is doomed to fail miserably. * http://www.ncsl.org... *http://www.mybudget360.com... *https://en.wikipedia.org...","everyone should be equal Absolute equality is rather unrealistic but as a practical matter, It is important to relieve poverty and eastablish an equitable standard of living, Maybe not socialism but a heavily regualted version of capitalism like northern europe","Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life Vouchers for Basics of Life Limits People's Freedom of Choice","Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility Let me address each of the individual points first, then I'll summarize: ----------------------------------------- YOU: Increased welfare benefits: -So were holding children and people unable to work, responsible for their own being if we dont have increased welfare? Welfare, no matter how much it increases, is not exactly a glamorous lifestyle and you can make way more doing anytihng from working at mcDs to picking trash. Besides that, it mainly goes to families with children and to the edlerly who cant work. ME: We are removing our responsibility to give to charity, support our parents, friends and fellow human beings who need it and placing it with a mandated program administered by the government. Welfare is just one method of decreasing the personal responsibility of the individual and placing it on the government. Do you disagree? ----------------------------------------- YOU: Increased social security benefits: -Saving money isnt an option for many. If we dont give social security benefits, most people will be either working until the day they die, or, if they cant work before that day, live on the streets. ME: Why isn't saving an option for many? People are already paying increased taxes for social security, why not let them keep more of thier money and let them save it responsibly? ----------------------------------------- YOU: Universal health care: -Stunt car driving? what in gods name are you talking about. Government sponsered health care is for the UNINSURED not the evil kennivels. Refer to the other two points above ME: Those advocating universal health care often cite European health care as an example. The ultimate goal of Liberals everywhere is universal health care for everyone, not just the uninsured. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Universal education: -Of course, less education = smarter kids. Im sure the family that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage has plenty of time to come home and teach their children how to read write and do math. What world are you living in? ME: People pay taxes and business pay taxes, a large portion of which goes to education. The more taxes that businesses pay, the less they are able to pay thier employess, and the more taxes people pay the less money they have to spend so what they do get paid goes less far. Personally I pay almost 30% out of my paycheck for income tax alone. Imagine if everyone instantly began making 30% more than they do now? Do you think paying for education would be a problem? (and we're just talking about income taxes). All of this aside, you seem to be conceding my point that universal education decreases personal responsibility. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Pro-abortion: -First of all, what the hell is \"pro-abortion\"? Do you think liberals go out, get pregnant and have an abortion, jsut for fun? I tihnk you mean \"pro-choice\" which only says abortion isnt legally impeedable by the federal government. Im not personally a fan of the act and if i were ever involved in a situation where abortion was an issue with a girlfriend/wife/sister/friend ect., i would definatley be opposed, but i cant push that opinion of federal law. No body has that right, (in my opinion). ME: By default a woman doesn't have a choice except not to get pregnant. The benefits of medical technology and trained doctors ALLOWS the woman to have an abortion. How can something that is a privledge and not a right NOT be legally impeedable by the federal government? At the very least this should be left up to the states to decide. This is beside the point though. I do think that people go out and have sex for the fun of it, and when they realize they got pregnant due to thier own irresponsibility, they get an abortion. Regardless of how you feel, the end result is less responsibility for the individual. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Anti-death penalty: -So instead of making the legal system take charge and try and rehabilitate and isolate, its more \"responsible\" to just kill the guy and move on? ME: So now the responsibility for the murderous behavior isn't on the murderer, it's on the government to rehabilitate/isolate/take care of him? You're proving my point. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Corperate Morality -Keeps Corperations accountable for the wages of their employees, thier effect of the enviornment and monopolization of the market. ME: As opposed to the people forming unions and taking pre-emptive action (such as leaving the corporation or boycotting thier product or service) to facilitate this change on thier own? ----------------------------------------- YOU: Anti-War -Makes govt responsible rather than our brave soldiers. ME: Are you claiming anti-war as a key Liberal position? Can you clarify? Do you mean anti-war as in pacifist or anti-war as in you don't like war? (who does?) War and the protection of the people is one of the governments core responsibilities, and is the primary reason behind it's creation, and hence the responsibility falls to the government and the military (including the soldiers) both. It is the people's responsibility to elect responsible politicians with a focus on protecting our country. Not going to war requires far less responsibility than making the decision to go to war. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Your argument is completely ridiculous ME: So far you've pretty much conceded my position on all these issues. Your argument seems to be with my stance on each of these issues, not with the fact that the liberal positions all decrease the personal responsibility of the individual. ----------------------------------------- I think your arguments are all a little misplaced. The main question of the debate is whether or not \"Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility\", and I explained how the liberal stance on each key liberal issue decreases the personal responsibility of the individual. You may disagree with my stance on these issues but I don't see how you can disagree with the topic of this debate. As a matter of fact, you seem indirectly admit it in your arguments. Who's to say that decreasing personal responsibility is bad in the first place? If what I'm saying is true and this is what Liberalism seeks, and you're a Liberal, be proud of your position and explain why reducing personal responsibility is a good thing. Your arguments seem very kneejerk.","Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service Income Tax is unjust as the tax does not contribute anything positive towards any public service. The Income Tax simply pays off the national debt we owe to private banks. The private banks (Fed, Bank of England, ECB, most central banks) create the money out of thin air (i.e. they just print it when someone signs a mortgage, credit agreement etc). The problem here is that we (the general public) are paying with our real sweat equity (our general work and labour) to pay off a debt that has been created out of nothing. This is unjust as the debt goes into the coffers of the owners of the private banks and does not contribute to any social good. The solution would be to have a nationalised bank run by the government. Governments would then be voted in and out, judged on how economically productive they were for their citizens. This is an issue of momentous importance, so much so that the Constitutionalist Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is running on a manifesto to scrap the Income Tax in America, as it is an unjust tax which does not serve the majority of the population, and furthermore is unconstitutional. To help you understand this problem in more detail, a good number of documentaries have been produced on this issue. The best in my opinion are called 'Money as Debt', 'The Money Masters' and 'Aaron Russo: Freedom to Fascism'. I would suggest that you take a quick look at these films before you attempt to rebut this proposition - as many of the initial questions you may potentially have are likely to be addressed and answered by those films. Better yet, these films are free for anyone on Google video. In response to the counter argument opposite...to clarify, this point is extremely relevant to the debate. The debate is 'Basic Income Tax Should Be Abolished', and this is a very important point to stress in such a debate - income tax does not contribute to the public good. If the goal of government is to produce the most favourable public good for the majority, then it therefore follows that the Income Tax is a tax which should be abolished as it does not meet this criteria.","The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system. Sorry for the confusion. Billy is still alive (although maybe like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he just can't work. Second, don't defer me to a website like that. I don't defer people looking for facts to Michael Moore (although he is amazing). But anyhow, the edges of the spectrum like to stretch the truth, and that is no exception. I found the article, and, since I haven't found that \"fact\" anywhere else, I find it hard to believe. And the average cost of healthcare, for Billy, might be 300% of his paycheck. It might cost more to the rich guys, but you can see how beautifully the Bush tax cuts worked, based on the same principle that you speak of. It is a sad thing, there really is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody has to pay. Truth is, just as the French have to pay for extra coverage, we don't need a comprehensive system. We just need basic necessities, paid for in a fair way. I wish I had more space, but basically, health is something we all deserve.","The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. Wow, you really may be retarded... just kidding! Maybe... \"OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money.\" I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead. \"You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius.\" Typo, smart one... \"'Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.' Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems.\" Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself. \"'My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs.' There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters.\" Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care. \"'In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is \"one size fits all\" and it is given to people who don't need it.' According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance?\" Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours. \"I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care.\" You were saying that it isn't fair to give Bobby free health care and make Johnny pay. That's the classic anti-welfare argument. \"'I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff.' Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused.\" It's pretty simple, I am not giving more welfare to people, I am simply paying for their health costs if they can't afford it. \"It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word 'right' as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to 'right' to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it.\" Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy. \"Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care (\"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.\").\" That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that? \"So? What allows the government to say, \"We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich\"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the \"right to life\" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it.\" Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet. \"Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the \"right to life\" would be their choice of health care.\" So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me. Why you vote CON: 1. PRO has not shown why universal health care is any better than my plan that only pays for those who cannot afford health care. 2. People end up paying more and getting less under a universal health plan. 3. Universal health care is much less efficient and cost-effective as my plan is.","The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. \"Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level.\" OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money. \"Taxes, read above, genius...\" This is what you said: \"...and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms...\" You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius. \"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.\" Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems. \"My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs.\" There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters. \"In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is \"one size fits all\" and it is given to people who don't need it.\" According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance? \"Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan.\" I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care. \"I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff.\" Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused. \"You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights.\" It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word \"right\" as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to \"right\" to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it. \"As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive.\" Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care (\"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.\"). \"Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff.\" So? What allows the government to say, \"We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich\"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the \"right to life\" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it. \"Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments!\" Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the \"right to life\" would be their choice of health care.","Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple. This proves “that the rich are paying out proportionately to what they're earning”(pro). In fact, the ‘rich’ are paying nearly 200% of what they would be paying if everyone’s taxes were more simply proportional to their earnings (3). To elaborate: The top thousandth descending cumulative percentile makes 8.86% of all money made in the United States, but pays over 16% of all collected taxes (3). Then, the bottom 50%, which takes in nearly 12% of the nation’s income, has to pay less than 3% of the nation’s tax (3). Source (1) agrees that over 15% ($212 bil) of revenue from income tax goes to welfare programs; assuming that even 3% of this is used to help the lower 50% of people with income, their income taxes do end up being negative, meaning it only goes up from there. Additionally, less than 6% of income tax goes into transportation infrastructure (4), so how exactly are the wealthy more reliant on society? Furthermore, Pro’s entire argument is reliant on wealth being a zero point system. Really, one person’s wealth does not take away from another’s. When someone buys an iPhone, others still have their older phones. The ‘wealth pie’ is simply growing. Read (1). Finally, Pro’s sources… [1] and [4] are the exact same source, and BOTH times, it argues that the middle class is stingier with money than the upper class. [2] only focuses on France and Germany; it provides no statistics about the US and even explains that collected data could be an outlier. It does not even focus on exactly how many inherit their wealth. [3] argues that the wealthy do not create the jobs at all, so why would they be responsible for creating “temporary jobs”? And I do not want a system where everyone gives back equally. I want a system where everyone has an equal opportunity to grow… Sources (1) http://www.forbes.com... (2) http://wapo.st... (3) http://www.irs.gov... (4) http://www.cbpp.org...","Universal Health Care Taxes is how the economy works, We may not like taxes, But it is an obligation to pay our taxes and respond accordingly. If there was a income-based health care tax, We would be able to use universal health care, Which was the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I can argue through this logic that if we can enact a health care tax so people without coverage, Can afford coverage without emptying their pockets. Every American deserves not to have health care bills that are astronomically high.","Universal healthcare Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?","Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! Facts are that MOST Americans agree that EVERYONE NEEDS Healthcare, Life insurance, Dental insurance, Vision Insurance, Disability Insurance, Sick Pay, Vacation Pay, Holiday Pay, you lose","Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. \"they are not \"nuts\" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change.\" But you could say the same of those who would call for universal food, clothing and shelter-- the likes of whom me and most of America would consider a little \"nuts.\" So I see (and many others) the UHC crowd as no different. They don't deserve preferencial treatment. \"But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally.\" You reply: \"This is true....because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone.\" So you think we should implement universal health care simply because we can afford to. I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. And again, that is called communism. Just because we(or the unfortunate minority you will have paying for this)can afford something is not cause enough to implement it. \"Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation.\" Why not? If their in favor of doing it for health care, then why not for the more important needs in life? You still fail to address this inconsistency. \"Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France).\" But it we know they are capable of it, and it could be easily argued they they should go all the way. After all it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important. They, like UHC proponents in our country are simply inconsistent. And, as I have said, if they were consistent, they would be communists. \"One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars.\" When is the last time you saw the price of house? Clothing, rent and rood are by far more costly than private health insurance currently available. Policies for young people are particularly affordable (from as little as $80-$150 per month depending on coverage). Most of the 18-to-25-year-old whiners who are pushing for Obama and his assortment of freebies are simply blowing off getting health insurance and opting for car payments and cell phone bills instead. You for instance-- I'll bet you had no health insurance at the time of your accident but were able to use your Samsung text your friends and family to let them know you were okay. \"The middle class often cannot afford health insurance while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing.\" Yet I don't know many middle class without nicer cars than they really need, cell phones for most every family member and DSL service for their multitude of home computers. Let's not forget video game equipment and flat-screen TVs. The people in this country who TRULY cannot afford health insurance are a very small minority of those who do not have it. And these people (just as those with no food, shelter, and clothing) should have some TEMPORARY relief available if their situation truly warrants it. There will always be poor people (by choice or circumstance), but that is no excuse for socialism. \"my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none.\" I thought you would need to get creative to reconcile the inconsistency we have been discussing up to this point, but denying the inconsistency exists at all is a bit of a stretch. After rounds of discussing the inconsistency we have both already acknowledged, you are now claiming there is no inconsistency whatsoever because \"no link can be drawn\" between one human need and another. I'm going to give you a hall pass on this one and move on with our debate. \"While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care.\" There's that inconsistency again. But again, no real defense for it has been put forth. But at least you're acknowledging we still have a debate topic at all.","Ban Obamacare Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Three basic, unalienable human rights, guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America. Not coincidentally, the inaccessibility to healthcare infringes upon all three of these rights. Without health, one cannot have life, achieve liberty, or pursue happiness to its fullest extent. Thus, healthcare should be treated as a public utility, available to all at affordable rates. The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has begun to do just that, rendering it not only Constitutional, but also proving it upholds basic human rights. Let's look at the numbers: 16.4 million people have gained coverage under Obamacare, a 35% chunk out of the uninsured. This means that 16.4 MILLION people are now able to receive affordable healthcare. Contrary to the fears of the GOP, Obamacare has actually provided consumers with MORE choices, as 25 percent more issuers have joined the Marketplace since its introduction, providing citizens with more choices. Americans are saving money on prescription drugs, as $15 billion has been saved since 2010, about $1,598 per beneficiary. Taxpayers are benefiting, as healthcare spending grew at its slowest rate in 50 years. But let's not stop there. The countries that top both lists of PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and GDP (Gross Domestic Product) have some form of socialized healthcare, and are in much better financial standing. This includes countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Along with their free education, those countries are miles ahead of the US. This is no coincidence. If you don't like Obamcare, you can opt for a more expensive, more inclusive plan. One is not limited. Obamacare simply sets a standard for a quality of living, ensuring all should have access to healthcare, that would be otherwise unaffordable. Not only is Obamacare Constitutional- it works. It works so well, and has worked so well in other countries, it's time we take it a step further, We are long overdue for some form of socialized healthcare.","this should be the outline for reforming social security if nothing is done, everyone will automatically get a pay cut, that's the law. so you'd rather grandma get her benefits reduced, instead of given trump and other billionaires a pay cut first? you see no other policy that we could do, other than to cut grandma's paycheck?","World Wide Unemployment Benefits. My argument: #1 \"World-Wide\": There is already worldwide unemployment benefits, and they're good enough. So far, I have not been able to find countries with absolutely *no* unemployment benefits in case someone becomes unemployed. According to http://aboutunemployment.org..., there is unemployment insurance in all 50 states if people are not fired 'for cause'. Ranging from 12-30 weeks long, these benefits are already in place for workers who are laid off due to automation and other causes not related to their work conduct to help them when they are looking for another job. Some places (Finland) even give UBI, or Universal Basic Income, which is basically free money to unemployed people. So as the countries of the world move towards Finland's example, giving out free money to help people pursue their interests, find a new job, and move forward in life, what more is there to be asked for? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to your arguments: #2 \"As we move forward and robots become Charles Darwin's parasitic wasps. The majority will become the minority the unlike s of today's, majority that suffer because of a minority.\" I will take this piece by piece. \"Robots become Charles Darwin's Parasitic Wasps\" I assume means this Darwin quote: \"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.\" I similarly assume that the wasps are the robots and they are supposed to feed on... *us*? Let us first revisit why we have this system set up the way it is. We all need money because it facilitates the exchange of goods, allowing us to get food, get water, get shelter... all of our basic needs, and more. Robots are starting to take over the more menial parts of this labor: For example consider Adam Smith's pin factory. He states that \"One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper...\" would *you* want to be stuck whitening pins eight hours a day for the rest of your life? I hope not! Robotics can take the menial labor and do it much better than humans, leaving humans time to do other, more skilled labors. #3 \"Wall E the Walt Disney movie...\" Yes, please everyone, climate change is real. What I disagree with is that \"the wrong people are in charge\". Try setting up and playing World Climate with others and you will find how hard it is to fix our problems. Maybe even try playing it with your \"Tom T. Hall\". You will find that solving problems requires more than the right people in charge. Being a good singer with good ideals isn't going to solve climate change either. \"in charge\" is difficult as well. The world has 195 countries (recognized by US State Department). The world has 7 billion people. Good luck getting all those people to agree to have massive changes, sea changes in their lives so that we can stop climate change. You'll have to get everyone to close coal and natural gas plants, jump start electric car building, build renewable plants, etc. Without a dictatorship this is impossible to accomplish, and no one likes dictatorships anyways. #4 \"Have the 1% ears\" DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT PART OF THE 1% NOR DO I CLAIM TO BE Yes, the 1% have ears, they are humans like the rest of us, and they are kind as well. The only thing they share are their material wealth. There are Democrats and Republicans and Independents in this group. There are climate advocates and deniers in this group. There are presidents and oil executives and lawyers in this group. There are *singers and political advocates* in the group, and maybe one of your idols are part of the 1%. There are many with compassion and brilliance, and a few with just... brilliance? Any problem is hard to solve, and changing a few heads at the top won't solve them. The United States, right now, has a reality show star at its helm. Did it help? It once had a peanut farmer, an actor, and of course the lawyers and senators at its helm. Did they do their job well enough? Some did, some didn't. It's very 50/50. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion I believe A) we already have robust unemployment standards B) adding new political neophytes at the top of politics won't make things get better C) robots will make our lives better My arguments are listed above. Thank you.","Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. So it seems I've taken the resolution a little off-topic from where the instigator intended for it to go. Very well, I do not think it will hurt my case or my position in this debate -- As Con, I must prove why advocates of universal health care should NOT also be advocating for universal food, shelter or clothing. Got it. Well consider R1 to be a detailed explanation of why advocates of UHC are calling for it in the first place, and they are not \"nuts\" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change. In terms of this debate, Pro has asked that I explain the so-called inconsistency of singling out health care by wanting to make health care universal, whereas other basic human needs like food and clothing are above health care in terms of the hierarchy of necessity, yet people aren't advocating for socialized shelter. First, as I've pointed out, universal food, shelter and clothing are already provided to those in need by the government. Pro notes, \"But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally.\" This is true; one must qualify and meet the living standards deemed appropriate to receive \"free\" food and shelter. However this is because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone but those who are deemed in dire need. #1 - Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation. Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France). #2 - One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars, putting families into debt and/or causing them to seek no treatment at all (which may cost them their health/lives). Prescription drugs, operations or other medical procedures, doctor visits, etc. are all a lot more expensive than these basic needs, especially because there are often no alternatives. ... For instance, if I broke a bone and needed surgery, there is no getting around that. But if I'm hungry and can't afford a gourmet meal or even a fast food meal, there's always the option of buying a bag of Ramen noodles for 25 cents, or in a moment of desparation, even taking left-over food out of the trash (such as some homeless people often resort to). However while one can build a make-shift place to live (even from a cardboard box) and survive, one cannot perform heart surgery on themselves, for instance, thus making health care a greater need. The same example applies to buying a t-shirt at a craft store for $2 as opposed to an Armani shirt for $200. Third, keep in mind that not only the impoverished can benefit from universal health care. The middle class often cannot afford health insurnace while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing. Thus my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none. While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care. So again, offering universal food, clothing and shelter would turn us into a communist nation. We already have programs that offer assistance in these areas to those in dire need. However the establishment of universal health care would NOT turn us into a communist nation. Instead, it would eliminate the high cost charged by insurance companies, and we'd pay less money for (at least) equal or better health care. Everyone would receive this benefit - not just the rich, and not just the poor. Keep in mind that making health care universal could/would probably increase the salary one earns, because offering health insurance would no longer be a perk of a job offer. They'd have to find other incentives to reward their employees with. Hmm. All-in-all, I have pointed out why universal health care is a good idea, while offering universal food, clothing and shelter is not. Universal health care would SAVE people money, whereas the taxation from all of those other goods would cost people money. It also just doesn't make sense in general, whereas universal health care does make sense. So basically, even if you don't agree with universal health care, that's fine... but to say that supporters of UHC should also support other universal programs is presumptious and frankly kind of absurd.","All Americans should be entitled to health care To begin: -In this debate health care shall be defined as a universal government run health care system -I would like to refrain from arguing specifics of health care provisions but I will fully accept arguments on the effectiveness of government health care Resolution: All Americans should be entitled to health care So with this in mind I would like to open my argument: In the status quo, millions of Americans have had and will continue to have serious medical illnesses and will be required to pay vast amounts of medical bills. In the interests of this debate, I will list the reasons to prefer the resolution to the status quo: 1. Many Americans are unable to pay for their health expenses even though not at fault, this creates a situation in which a person's right to live is judged by their income. Governing a person's right to live by income is bad because it advocates that a a person who is very morally just and has contributed greatly to society is worth less than another person who has cheated his way to wealth. My argument is simple, government run health care is better because your state of health is not determined by your financial worth. 2. The privatization of health care is bad because the most successful health care company is the one that makes the most money which means that a person's health isn't held as importantly. 3. Children born to families in lower economic conditions will also suffer from decreased health even though the child has done nothing to deserve that status. 4. Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance(1)(2). (1)http://www.pnhp.org... 5. In order to protect the interests of all Americans, universal health care is the best option to counter epidemics like bird flu. 6. The Preamble of the US Constitution clearly states \"to promote the general welfare\" of the people.This justification alone is enough to show all Americans should have the right to health care because it \"promotes the general welfare.\" These are all reasons why governmental health care solves best for moral and economic factors. In conclusion, universal health care is a moral imperative to insure that freedom and equality is preserved in the US.","A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea OH YES! NO STRESS! PROWESS! NO CONTEST! THE BEST!","The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. \"I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead.\" Same to you - I can still apply the same argument to that. What if your \"limit\" of taxes has been reached, and the government decides it needs some minor funding for a highway project? Then the taxes will have been raised beyond the \"necessary limit\". I could go on with many different examples, so you see my point; you can't say this is a consequence of just health care. \"Typo, smart one...\" I realized that obviously... \"Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself.\" OK, so Johnny wants a better health plan than Bobby, so he gets it. Bobby wants it too, but he can't have it, because he's broke. How do you think Bobby feels? According to this whole \"equal rights\" thing we've been talking about, Bobby deserves the same health care as Johnny. So why shouldn't he get it? Especially if he was born into a position where he can't change his situation easily. \"Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care.\" I'm not saying the government should make decisions for us, you're over exaggerating it. I'm saying that we should all use one health plan, that covers common problems. Any additional problems can be given by his job, like he said. But basic needs should be given to all people. In fact, this way, since not as many things will be covered by a universal health plan (for example, uncommon things like tornadoes will not be included, but common things like surgery will be), it won't cost as much. Add in the fact that only 10% of the people will get the benefit and it will not monetarily affect the rest, and it's not that bad of a tax raise. \"Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours.\" Well I do have a C or D in English...damnit! XD Oh well, back to the debate. Fine, I'll list the Pros and Cons of each plan. Pros of Universal: + everyone gets it Cons: - tax increase Pros of Non-universal: + no tax increase His plan doesn't have more Pros, but it has less Cons. However, let's analyze it further for a minute. His main benefit is that Bobby will get his free health care, while Johnny's is supplied by his job and covers his specific needs. Now, in a universal plan, everyone gets basic needs, and nobody would get specific benefits. However, Johnny's job can give him the extra benefits he needs. So instead of the job having the burden of providing ALL health care benefits, it only needs to provide the ones specific to that job. Also, everyone starts with an equal amount of health care (equal rights). So in a universal plan, less pressure is put on specific jobs, and everyone starts with equal protection. The only \"problem\" is a tax increase. However, it can be worked into the budget in place of something else to even it out. \"Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy.\" Exactly. That's why one of the purposes of government is to stabilize the economy. But a stable economy cannot be compared to free speech for example; free speech is a fundamental right that cannot be limited. Economic stability, however, is just necessary to establishing good living conditions. It makes life good. It's not like the government doing a bad job with the economy would be taking away a right; it'd just be a bad government. \"That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that?\" Like I suggested earlier this argument, the job can provide any extra benefits Jack needs. He already gets common protections, though. So they are not getting less. And Bobby is getting more. That's the point of it. And for the record, your example sucks; why would you get free spa treatment with your health insurance? lol \"Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet\" No, he would get the basic health care from the government, and then his job would give him the friggin' sweet part. So what he doesn't pay out normally (the unsweet part) would go back in taxes. No gain, no loss. Sweet enough? \"So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me.\" Did you notice that people who pay more for their houses, have bigger houses? Maybe that's why they pay so much. Rich people pay more, because they get more. Vote Pro because: 1. I have shown why universal health care does not mean paying more and getting less. 2. Universal health care keeps current health care bonuses while providing more care to those who need it.","Universal Basic Income Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.","That UBI should be implemented in the western world As someone who lives in Australia and has personal experience with the Aboriginal debate, you are again misinformed. I will now lay out my rebuttal Rebuttal Popularity Difference between income card and UBI Abolish not refine Addressing your point on popularity. This debate is about whether they should do so, not how the government would get it through Parliament. Besides, your reason for the popularity was a $20,000 proposal. However, I am proposing a $10,000 UBI, which as logic entails is the correct amount of the budget. You pointed out that the income card doesn't work. This is true, but that is not what we are suggesting, isn't a card to control what you spend your welfare on, which is what an income card is, we are suggesting we give them money free for them to spend. You said that we should refine the welfare instead of replacing it with completely different system, however, the welfare program has been proven not to work as any amount above it's small benefit window and you lose the welfare leaving you with less. In conclusion, UBI is a better system, as opposed to normal welfare. This debate is not about getting it through Parliament, or what completely different systems do. This debate is about, what has already been proven as the better system, UBI.","Universal Basic Income His plan increases the “income effect” compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent’s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent’s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con’s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. “[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers’ desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the “welfare to work” reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the “weaker” nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).”[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con’s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con’s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a “crowd out” effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn’t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent’s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its “cut throat” capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any “positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only “15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.”[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, “most are in poverty.”[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent’s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent’s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found “that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.”[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...","The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. Okay, this should be easy... just kidding... maybe...anyhow: \"' . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . ' Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P\" Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level. \"' . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . ' What unnecessary restrictions?\" Taxes, read above, genius... \"Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live. Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free?\" Because Johnny's health insurance is probably provided for free by his business. Even if it's not, he can afford to choose his health insurance. Since Bobby works at fast food restaurants, he is kinda lacking health care, which is necessary to have if one wants to live and practice one's rights (that's why any health care should be provided). Anyways, Johnny pays the same difference if he gets universal health care, as the extra taxes he pays go to giving Bobby health care. Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care. My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs. Bobby, who can't afford any health insurance gets to buy basic health insurance. In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is \"one size fits all\" and it is given to people who don't need it. Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan. \"Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable.\" I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff. \"Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to: 1) Protect citizen rights 2) Maintain order and safety 3) Maintain economic stability 4) Provide necessary public services\" You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights. \"With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care. Of course, you may ask, \"What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?\" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress. I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people.\" As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive. Also, the example of Jack is important. Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff. Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments! While this may not seem like a huge deal, the point is, you lose stuff with universal health care that you don't if you simply pay for what people need.","Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens As the topic is a resolution, and I am taking the affirmative, I fully agree that I should take the Burden of Proof. That being said, let us begin. Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens. We shall begin with the most fundamental role of government. The protection of mankind's universal rights. This is the most basic, moral, and \"just\" function of government. This is the basic principle upon which Thomas Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence. The most basic role of government is to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. Like Thomas Jefferson, I will build my argument upon this principle. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights details 30 rights which ought to be ensured to all people. Two of these rights are the right to life and the right to social security. Youth For Human Rights defines these two rights as: Life: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety. Social Security: We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old. Based on these two definitions, I feel it is reasonable to assume that every person has a right to their life and for the necessities for life. If the base function of a just government is to protect the universal rights of its citizens, and each person has a right to life and the things necessary to sustain life, then it is only reasonable to say that a just government ought to ensure food security to its citizens. I find it to be a truly moral and just resolution. I hope my few words have rung true. With hope of a dignified response, I solicit the votes of the judges. Thank you.","Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI I'll cover framework, case, and off case respectively.Going over framework.It's fair to say that my opponent dropped his value criterion of generic consistiency and my value criterion of consquentialism. Therefore all impacts should be decided through a consquentialist framework. The value of Kantian Social Contract is better supported on the negation, as we avoid the disadvantages of the aff plan. The social contract as explained by Kant is the agreement between individuals and the goverment for the individual to give up some rights to ensure the goverment protects the remaining. However, criminals violate others rights through murder, plunder, theft or such. Therefore, they don't have the same rights as the average citizen as they have broken the social contract. For example, a criminal may suffer from disenfranchisment, incarceration, capital punishment or such as punishment.Going over case.Overall, my opponent fails to realize that via establishing a partial basic income brings all the same benefits as UBI, and avoids the disadvantages of crime and terror and welfare magnets. The partial basic income is still supplied to the common American, solving everything that my opponent says is unique to UBI. We both solve for poverty, economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. Overall, all the affirmative advantages are nonunique, since neg also solves.Going over my opponent's attack on my C1 on crime and terror. First, I'll appeal myself to the good will of the spectators and my opponent. Where did I ever breathe a word, or even the edge of a word that UBI would be a $10,000 monthly payment. I'm sorry to say, but my opponent fails to realize the proper definitions of words. According to Merriam-Webster, annually is defined as occurring or happening every year or once a year. Cambridge Dictionary agrees: once per year. Holidays are celebrated ANNUALLY, birthdays are occur ANNUALLY, and anniversaries happen ANNUALLY. Completely ignore everything my opponent says on this faulty basis. What must be said, however, is that UBI proponents disagree what quantitatively is a basic income. Some say $10,000, others say $12,000, while others advocate for higher. I'll take the $12,000 number, however it can very well be said that my opponent is making a rod for his own back. If we pick the higher of the two, Tango Blast would receive $228,000,000 annually, only worsening the problem. I'll further elaborate the impacts. According the FBI's report on the National Gang Threat Assessment, there are approximately 1.4 million active gang members. Given that, this would give organized crime groups $16,800,000,000 annually. This would only further expand their massive criminal enterprises and such, exacerbating their power in the global sphere.Now my opponent asks how are criminals going to receive these funds? Very important question indeed? Nonetheless, they would receive it the same way everyone else would, whatever that may be. Many criminals have bank accounts, and pay their taxes and such, and under UBI, the government would treat them like any other citizen.My opponent drops my point on domestic terror and FBI watch lists, and by extension admitting that under the affirmative domestic terrorism would by increased in both number and severity. Imagine the pointless, violent bloodshed in say Orlando, or Las Vegas, or Parkland or such, only exacerbated with military grade weaponry. Under the affirmative, the school walkouts would need a great deal more than just 17 minutes for the lives lost.On the point of wrongful convictions, most of these are done through plea bargains. Misdemeanor convictions are almost always the standard with them, meaning that the Now lets go over my C2 on immigration.First, this is merely basic logic. Currently in the status quo, many immigrants illegally come to our country to bear children, ensuring they are US citizens. Then as their children are US citizens, they too want citizenship status. UBI grants additional incentives, since they don't even need to work to survive. Setting a 10 year limit ensures that immigrants are able to become productive members of society, and don't come here just for welfare.Second, immigration does in fact have consquences. Mass illegal immigration would encourage Trump to engage in mass deportations to maintain his Republican base, and to be hard on immigration. Mass deportations of that sort haven't exactly the best history in this country. For example, during the mass deportation during the Great Depression, Hispanic homes were raided, regardless of who they were, and were forced onto south bound trains to Central America and Mexico. This permantly seperated families, and sent multitudes into a country that many never knew. Third, I made no economic concerns about UBI in regard to immigration. This point is mute. I expect immigrants to kickstart their lives by getting a job. It isn't the goverment' job to support someone just because they moved here, they need to prove their worth.The CP solves this disadvantage by preventing legal immigrants from getting a UBI till they have been here 10 years. For these reasons I strongly urge a negative ballot.Since I have characters remaining, here's a word of warning. Never ask for a doggie bag in Pyeonchang.","That UBI should be implemented in the western world Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws in your argument I would like to point out the fact that 'broad and illogical' is not how you should describe it, as an opener to a debate it is meant to be broad, and illogical will be disproved later in the argument. Now onto the rebuttal. Rebuttal Not Enough money in the US Not enough money for the people The argument that there would be not enough money in the US governments pocket to pay for everyone is true, to an extent. The US federal budget adds up to $3.8 trillion, this makes up 21% of the US economy. The government should merely Raise tax on private industry. I choose private industry because the money from UBI is not taxed which means that it will end up in private areas of the economy anyway. Additionally, private industry is not taxed enough now. This mixed with the majority of the welfare budget would come to enough money that will circulate in the economy. The idea that $10,000 is not enough money, may seem correct from a rudimentary point of view. However, with further research you can find that trials done in Finland, show that even for poorest when you give them $10,000 it helps encourage them seek out further funds and decreased poverty rates substantially. The idea that the homeless just spend their money on drugs and alcohol is actually false, and what the real result is that the richest one percent spend the most money on drugs and alcohol. So in conclusion the arguments you have presented as rebuttal are either misinformed or false, and my point still stands.","Universal Basic Income Thanks, Con. I’ll use this round to defend my case and crystallize.Trialsa) Con alleges that the countries that had UBI trials in are incomparable to an American-implemented UBI because they’re considerably poorer, more corrupt, and less stable than the United States is. However, Con doesn’t illustrate *why* this matters, and expects us to assume that, because a country is less developed, any UBI trial conducted is going to be invalid. This string of assumptions is really going to hurt Con, and I’m going to show why.The underlying principle of a UBI is that an increase an income is inherently beneficial, as money is the basic means that we use to provide for ourselves. This principle doesn’t change in a country with proportionally less poor people. Even if we buy Con’s assumption that “each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified”, there’s no reason to believe that a UBI *won’t* be effective. Given that the U.S. has 43 million people living under the poverty line [12], the U.S. *absolutely* has room for improvement, and indeed has room to see a benefit from a UBI. Con’s premise is essentially that a country needs to be poverty-free in order for a UBI to be ineffective. Because a UBI would exist for the very purpose of reducing poverty, this point is nonsensical.Con doesn’t show how corruption or instability is relevant to a UBI. How would the basic principle of more income increasing financial leverage be confounded by more corruption or instability? Furthermore, “instability” isn’t defined by Con. He wants us to outright buy his assumptions that such would “amplify” the results of a UBI trial, and that such amplification results in in conclusive evidence that a UBI would have no effect whatsoever in the United States. We have no reason to buy either of these assumptions, so this point is negated. b) Con contends that my trials are limited, and are thus incomparable to the U.S. on a national level. But again, he gives us very little reason to dismiss my evidence; trials for cash transfers haven’t yet been done on that immense of a level, and in the absence of such, we should buy my pieces of evidence prima facie. Con gives us no instances of a UBI working, beyond a “model” in the UK (which I demonstrated to be flawed in R3), whereas I provide 4 instances of *actual* conducted trials, all of which pointed to UBI benefits. Additionally, Con admits that his model is a micro-implementation of an actual scenario, so *even* if his example is valid, we should dismiss it by Con’s own admission.Current Welfare Programsa) Yes, we have a progressive tax system in the sense that the poor pay marginally fewer taxes from their ordinary income. They are, however, taxed more when unrealized capital gains are added [13]. When one considers state and local taxes in addition to ones on the federal level, the illusion of the progressive tax system vanishes. In fact, a study [14] from the Institute on Taxation and economic policy found that “Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.” [15] The poor simply do not have less incentives to move up the income ladder, contrary to Con’s claim. He also dropped the CBO report I cited, so extend that.b) My asset cap point is pretty much dodged. Con insists that asset caps exist because some people just don’t need welfare programs. But he concedes that “there is definitely an argument to be made” in raising that cap. That’s exactly the argument I’m making: the caps are dangerously low, which discourage self-reliance and saving. Con is supposed to be defending the welfare programs as they stand right now, yet he admits that they might not be ideal. This can’t be good for him; I don’t see how he can simultaneously defend the status quo and agree that the status quo may not be idea.c) Con asserts that the poverty rate isn’t taken into consideration for in-kind welfare programs. How is this relevant? They do, in fact, take into consideration things like income and total assets. Con doesn’t show why this matters.I've shown how (1) multiple examples prove that a UBI works, and that (2) it reduced poverty, which Con has essentially conceded. Thus, I affirm.Sources[12] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu...[13] https://www.alternet.org...[14] https://itep.org...[15] https://www.cnbc.com...","All people should receive the same income Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.","Universal Basic Income I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, \"ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. \" By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum \"amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. \" [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. \"In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. \" [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. \"Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. \" [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. \"Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. \" [8] \"Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. \" [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. \"Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. \" Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...","That UBI should be implemented in the western world You have still failed to identify my main point... a UBI system is not a feasible replacement for welfare. The truth is, ordinary middle class, working citizens in their prime working age range DO NOT require the payment from a UBI system. It baffles me how you have failed to understand why currently, there is no country who has even begun to seriously consider this. The only country so far to pass a referendum is Switzerland, in which it was rejected 3 to 1. You claim to be Australian, I am as well. However, in your last argument, you failed to tell me how I was misinformed on the Aboriginal debate. Over the last 5 years, I have worked closely with a school foundation providing not financial funds, but things such as toiletries and access to health and nutritional education to a small town community with a large percentile of Aboriginal residents. We have seen that these provisions seem to have led to a greater improvement in the overall health of the community and we have even begun to get in close contact with some of the elders. But, back to the UBI point, I will once again enlighten you on reality. The truth is, many citizens in civilisation are born disadvantaged. Some children have parents with a bad influence, others have faced abused as young children and in many cases, these people end up broken mentally the homeless people on streets living off welfare. It is not that they are lazy and refuse to work. They were never taught the work ethic and never experienced a feeling of belonging to our society. These are the members of society who require the help of welfare. You seem to be overly confident that you have found a feasible UBI solution. However, you fail to realise that if you, genuinely, had found a practical, feasible UBI solution, you would not be on debate.org arguing. The popularity of a notion is directly correlated to how practical and real it is for the rest of society.","Universal Basic Income As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal \"Workfare\" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of \"roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today\" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- \"The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds\" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries \"overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates\" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...","Universal Basic Income Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...","Universal Basic Income I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more \"buIIshit jobs\" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the \"negative incentives\" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These \"negative incentives\" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered \"below\" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...","The US ought to provide an universal basic income. I accept. Where is that debate?","The US ought to provide an universal basic income. I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.","That UBI should be implemented in the western world Well to that, I will simply reply... Your first point is actually a very reasonable and valid solution, however, proposing such a tax reform and welfare slash would definitely NOT be popular with the public. This is evident in Switzerland wherein 2016, a UBI referendum was rejected. Trials are being run in many countries in Africa along with Finland, however, countries such as Australia and America have yet to seriously consider this. In Australia, a $20 000 UBI was proposed. The cost of this would be twice the current cost of the current welfare system. Additionally, regarding your point on homeless people and their spending, in Australia, there is a huge cultural debate on Aboriginal welfare. In fact, in many towns, the government has begun to introduce an income card/ food voucher system. The reality is, disadvantaged members of society in both America and Australia receive generously from the welfare system. These provisions are enough to provide basic housing, food and water. However, despite this, these people still sleep on streets and beg for money for food. Alcohol and drugs are a huge reason behind this. There is debate trying to push a nation-wide income card system for welfare receivers, however, this is argued to be a breach of human rights with no supporting evidence. The main problem is, there is lack of public funding to support an investigation which would be both lengthy and costly. In fact, if the government would manage (somehow) to pass a tax reform on private industries, the money would be much better off refining the current welfare system instead of abolishing it completely and replacing it with an impractical UBI system. The main aim of welfare is to aid disadvantaged members of society, not to make government money distribution equal.","Universal Basic Income IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!","Universal Basic Income There are multiple objectives a welfare program should achieve. Economist Ed Dolan offers the following four criteria in which to evaluate welfare programs:1 1) A good welfare program leaves few, if any, people below the poverty line; 2) Whether or not the program is targeted for those who need it most; 3) A good welfare program would keep work incentives intact, at least as much as possible; 4) A good welfare program would reduce administrative costs and waste. The UBI accomplishes all of these goals except for one, but I will explain this in a moment. M specific UBI involves a minimum income of $10,000—unconditional, you earn it whether or not you are working—and all welfare programs (even EITC!) except social security (would be phased out, I will elaborate if my opponent brings up costs), medicare, and medicaid. This would eliminate all poverty for families of two or more, and eliminate poverty for the vast majority of single person households. The reason I would not abolish medicare and medicaid is because the UBI would likely not be high enough to cover both their welfare and medical needs. We would also eliminate most middle class and upper class loopholes and tax credits in order to increase the UBI funding pool. The UBI benefit will outweigh the loss in credits for most middle class families. 1. A UBI would leave few, if any, people below the poverty line A properly crafted UBI would leave virtually everyone above the poverty line. My proposed UBI would keep anyone who earns just a few thousands dollars a year—something that can easily be done doing odd jobs occasionally—above the poverty line, and people who earn $0 would be only a little shy of it. All households with more than one person would be lifted above the poverty line. A UBI would fulfill this goal. 2. A UBI would not be targeted—and that’s a good thing! This is the only criteria a UBI does not meet, but this is actually a good thing. Why? Because means-tested programs focus on targeting. It focuses on giving aid to only those who need it. But the consequence of this is a decline in work incentives because means tested programs phase out over time and impose high marginal tax rates on the next dollar earned, thus discouraging work effort. Not only that, but an untargeted welfare program increases administrative efficiency because you do not need workers to make sure each family receiving benefits needs it—the untargeted aspect of the UBI means it can be administered through the tax system and be calculated by a computer algorithm. 3. A UBI would preserve work incentives overall, and do so better than any means tested system Implementing a UBI to a society where welfare did not exist at all would reduce work incentives. But a society without assistance for the needy is not desirable. Free markets have made us so wealthy that it is not only feasible to eliminate poverty, it is desirable because no one should starve in a wealthy society like as ours. The UBI would significantly increase work incentives compared to a means-tested welfare system because there is no phase-out of benefits. Phase-outs work the same as high marginal tax rates. In other words, for every extra dollar a poor person earns, they gain less than a dollar of disposable income. Let me give an example. Say we have a phase out of 0.75 cents per dollar earned. This means if I make one extra dollar from work, I lose 0.75 cents in benefits, and only get 25 cents. This means my marginal tax rate is 75%, which clearly disincentivizes work. Is the extra 25 cents worth it? Is it worth working for an extra dollar to only receive 25 cents? For some people, the answer is yes. But for others, the extra work may be worth one dollar, but the extra work is not worth 25 cents. Thus, a means tested system is destined to significantly reduce work incentives. This is not the case under a UBI. People will obtain the $10,000 benefit no matter what—if they earn a million dollars or $2,000 dollars, they will still get $10,000 in benefits each year. There is no phase out. No tax levied on every extra dollar earned. To further analyze this, let's look at economic theory. There are two effects of a UBI (and welfare in general) on work incentives: the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect generally reduces work. As disposable income rises, people tend to use more of that money to go on vacation and work less. The substitution effect generally increases work effort. As disposable income rises, the opportunity cost of not working grows larger. This increases work effort. Both of these effects work simultaneously. How would it work under a UBI? Look at the following graphic.2 Now assume we are at arrow one before the red and green lines cross (green = UBI, red = means tested, blue = no welfare). For this group of people, the income effect and the substitution effect simultaneously increase work incentives because the opportunity cost of not working grows with an added UBI and the income effect increases work effort. The reason the income effect actually increases work effort here is because having more disposable income means more leisure time in the future, but as you are poor in this part of the graph you cannot afford to take time off. So both of these effects under a UBI serve to increase work effort more than they do under a means tested program. Now look at arrow 2: a person’s income a little above the crossover point. The substitution effect is stronger under a UBI than under a means tested regime because there is no longer a 0.75 cent reduction in benefits for each dollar earned (in fact, the marginal tax rates under the current welfare system often exceed 100%, so by using 75% I am being generous).3 Now the income effect is greater under a UBI at this point of the graph than under a means-tested regime, but the substitution effect is likely much larger than the income effect at this point because it will only be as large as the difference between the UBI and the means tested regime—the income effect between no welfare and a UBI is fairly large here, but that is because earned income is a lot higher under UBI than under nothing. At this point in the graph, the difference in disposable income between a UBI and means tested is not very large, so the positive work incentives will outweigh the negative ones here. Now look at arrow 3. This represents people who wish to work less and qualify for government assistance instead of losing benefits and hopping onto the blue line (which is how it works in the U.S. right now because the phase out eventually ends up being zero). The UBI would remedy this because no phase out means no working less in order to qualify for a benefit—you always get the benefit—so, at this part of the graph, the UBI would enhance work incentives. Now jump to arrow 4. At this point, a means tested system ceases to offer benefits because they have been phased out—the individual at arrow 4 is middle to upper class. At this point, a UBI only has an income effect compared to a means tested system. This means, for the upper and middle class, a UBI would reduce work effort. However, the effects are going to be small because the higher the income, the smaller percentage of that income will come to a UBI. So while it will disincentivize work for these people, the effect will be small, and virtually zero for the rich. Thus, economic theory dictates that a UBI would increase work incentives compared to a means tested system. As Ed Dolan argues, a UBI “would substantially increase work incentives for low-income households while having small disincentive effects, if any, for middle- and upper-income households.”2 For this reason, Dolan believes work effort will be higher on aggregate under a UBI than under a means-tested system. 4. A UBI would reduce administrative waste This is the clearest and least disputable benefit of the UBI. A UBI would require no verification of personal characteristics. A means tested system would: you have to determine whether or not a person actually needs assistance. A UBI would just be integrated into the tax code and calculated by a computer. A person who made $0 would receive the money no questions asked. For people who earn $1 - infinity, you would receive the $10,000 minus taxes due. So a person earning $1 owes essentially no taxes, so he would get $10,001. But a person earning $100,000 will earn $110,000 minus taxes due. The only welfare program that is simple enough to virtually eliminate administrative costs is the UBI. Failures of the current welfare system A UBI is so important because the current system does not work. The poverty rate has remained virtually the same since the War on Poverty was declared, despite trillions in welfare spending.4 As noted in round 1, we have 126 different welfare programs. Each of these programs simply add to the red tape, and with no decrease in poverty since the late 1960s, these programs seem to add little to no benefit. My opponent will likely be providing a counterplan, as the failure of the current welfare state is fairly obvious. The failures of the current welfare system require that we get something done, and an unconditional UBI best protects work incentives, reduces administrative waste, and reduces the number of people below the poverty line 1. http://www.economonitor.com... 2. http://www.economonitor.com... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://object.cato.org...","Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a \"one size fits all\" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !","Universal Basic Income IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!","Universal Basic Income is a good thing So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals\"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? \"Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these \"welfare bums\" actually reenter the job market. ---\"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. \"Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. \"The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. \" [4]----\"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology\"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.","Universal Basic Income is a good thing I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach \"climax\" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a \"bad thing\" for the moment.","Universal Basic Income I. Intro Thank you to Varrack for what promises to be a stimulating discussion, and 1harder for the tournament. II. Cost As of 2012, means-tested welfare in the United States was comprised of 79 programs which cost $927 billion. [1] We can assume it has increased since then, so as a generous figure, we can suppose it currently costs roughly $1.1 trillion. Under Varrack\"s plan, each adult in the United States would receive $10,000. Kids Count Data Center estimates that as of 2016, there were approximately 249.5 million adults in the United States. [2] Providing each of these adults with a UBI would cost approximately $2.5 trillion annually, and this excludes all bureaucratic costs. It\"s clear to see that the cost is well over double the cost of the current welfare system. Not only does Varrack have to prove that his plan is superior to the current welfare system, he also must prove that it is worth the astronomical increase in the cost of welfare. There is also the negligible harm that it provides an extra $10,000 to individuals who do not need it. Images of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates receiving this guaranteed income is ridiculous, but the same principle can be applied to individuals making a fraction of what the super-rich make. A family with a combined income of $500,000 may find that an extra $20,000 is nice to have, but hardly necessary. I\"m the first to admit that this isn\"t a significant harm to the plan, but a harm nevertheless. III. Capitalism is not compatible with UBI Proponents of UBI often argue that UBI is the first step on the path toward de-commodifying labor and allowing citizens the freedom from work that a utopian society promises. However, in order to do this, citizens must be paid a sum high enough to allow them freedom from work. If not, they will be forced to continue working to reach a living wage. According to Professor Daniel Zamora of Cambride, employers know this and will be able to drive down wages, effectively turning this plan into a subsidy for businesses. [3] According to David Graeber, Professor at the London School of Economics, implementation of the UBI without first transitioning away from capitalism would only exacerbate many of the issues capitalism presents, and increase in the number of \"buIIshit jobs.\" [3] Rather than working in the intended manner, UBI would cause businesses to pay less, and end up causing Americans to work less fulfilling jobs just to maintain the same level of comfort that they had before the UBI was implemented. IV. UBI is ineffective Let\"s say we implement UBI in the United States. Though Varrack has provided examples of UBI being implemented in other nations, none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States. Instead, we should look to the micro-implementation case study done by the think tank \"Compass\" in the UK. By implementing a smaller version of Varrack\"s plan, the impact was devastating. Child poverty actually increased by 10%, poverty among pensioners by 4%, and among working class families by 3%. For Varrack\"s more comprehensive plan, the analysis points to slight reductions of poverty (7% for children, 1.9% for working age people, and 0.8% for pensioners.) [3] In order to do this, as stated earlier, the United States would have to pay approximately $2.5 trillion, which is over 12.5% of US GDP. [4] 2012 estimates on the price of eradicating poverty put the cost at around 1% of GDP. [5] If we can do so much more for so much less, why don\"t we? V. The American System and The American Dream Though individuals on both sides of the aisle attack the current state of welfare (albeit for entirely different reasons) by pointing to poverty rates, what isn\"t often taken into account is that this statistic ignores reception of in-kind welfare. It doesn\"t consider food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and the like, when these really put people in a much better situation than what the \"poverty rate\" implies. Impoverished Americans are, on average, far better off than their European counterparts. [6] Furthermore, the negative incentives \"discouraging impoverished Americans from working\" simply does not exist. Americans that earn less actually have a greater incentive to work than those in higher tax brackets. Their \"marginal tax rates\" or losses of benefits due to increased income, are actually significantly lower than the rest of the workforce. An individual below half the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of approximately 14%. A person from 50-100% of the poverty line has a marginal tax rate of about 24%. Individuals with higher incomes faced a marginal tax rate of about 34%. [6] This phenomenon that Varrack and many pundits tout is actually nonexistent. VI. Conclusion To summarize, our current system works. Critics use inaccurate statistics to discredit a system that is doing wonders. In contrast, the idea of UBI has never been tried in a developed country with a largely market economy, and without first dismantling capitalism, UBI would serve only to subsidize corporations to lower wages. Varrack must prove that 1. UBI is worth the massive increase in welfare costs 2. UBI could be implemented successfully within a capitalist economy and 3. That the limited testing in developing nations would be able to translate into the developed world. VII. Sources [1] http://budget.house.gov... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] https://www.jacobinmag.com... [4] https://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://prospect.org... [6] https://www.forbes.com...","Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar","That UBI should be implemented in the western world Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).","That UBI should be implemented in the western world UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.","Universal Basic Income This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare."],"string":"[\n \"The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Every country that has implemented universal health care, has seen that the sustem fails the citizens. The government will end up paying for the health care and seeing as how it will be paying for every person in America, the costs will go up significantly. This is unavoidable. While there is a 1000 character max, I cannot debate fully, but felt it was only fair to my opponent to at least give her something, as I did agree to the debate.\",\n \"The United States should design a universal health care system. I just want to start off by saying, there is a problem with U. S. health care SYSTEM. I just don't believe that Universal is the cure. My Points: 1. Number of people without Health Care is overstated 2. Destroys Privacy 3. Make everyone's problems our own 4. Doctor's have no incentive to provide adequate care 5. Companies cut down research on drugs 6. Examples Your Responses: 1. \\\"First off, the number of uninsured Americans is worse then it has ever been before (. http://www.cbpp.org......) and is growing worse. This indicates that our efforts either: A. Aren't working OR B. Never did. Either one isn't too good. \\\" - I want you to understand ust because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care. There are many nonprofits agency's and and government-run hospitals (like the VA) that provide services to those who don't have insurance. I also want you to understand that it is illegal to deny health care to anyone just because they do not have insurance. Uninsured Americans are a problem to our current system costs, but don't tell me that they are stuck with no health care if something happens to them. 2. \\\"There was no reasoning behind this point. A simple claim means nothing unless you back it up. Please clarify how this happens. \\\" - What do you mean, no reasoning? Do you not understand what I'm saying? Do you understand what universal health care means? Well, in case you don't, I will tell you. It means that health care costs will be spread to all Americans, whether you are 20 and healthier than ever (don't need health care) or 88 and depend solely on health care. I think that this is very unfair. I'm a strong believer that you decide a lot of what your health is like. You can prevent some major illnesses earlier in your life if you have the right lifestyle. People who never exercise, sit on the couch all day, drink 8 beers a night, and smoke a pack a day are much more likely than someone who does the opposite. Why should the opposite person be responsible for the lazy ones? To tell you the truth, although I have health insurance, I don't need it and would be fine without it. I have it because my business pays for it. When it becomes universal, should I be forced to pay for health care when I don't even need it? 3. \\\"If you mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this, well then that's true. However, studies show that, overall, universal health care could actually be beneficial in terms of the amount of money spent on it. \\\" - Yes, I do mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this. The expenses for universal health care would have to be paid for somehow so of course it would come from the tax payers. This means that we pay ridicously high taxes, we have have cuts in different areas of our government. For example, less education spending, less medical research spending or less military spending. So, as much people think that universal health care is \\\"free\\\", it really isn't because our taxes will be higher and/or we loose spending in our key ares. Is it really worth it if we have to cut these important things? 4. \\\"Well, assuming all doctor's are profit driven and have no qualms over effectually killing innocents by not providing care, then yes. .. you're right. However, most doctor's get into the practice because they want to help people, not because they want money. You gave an example that the doctors need money to pay off loans, but can you give one example of a practicing doctor that isn't well off? The fact is, doctor's will always be relatively wealthy, even with pay-cuts. \\\" - I wouldn't go as extreme as killing innocent patients by not providing care. Come on, we all know that there are good doctors and bad doctors. With universal health care, all doctors would have government jobs. As being a government job, they would have statute-mandated salaries. With government jobs, there is not much flexibility for better performing workers or harder working workers. They will basically all be getting paid about the same no matter what the performance. I believe that many doctors go into the profession to make the big bucks AND care for people. If doctors wouldn't be getting paid as much, do you really think that many students would want to really go through the long torture of medical school? 5. \\\"I fail to see the logic behind this. Please clarify. However, just assuming that there is logic behind it, here is a link that responds:\\\" - How can you not see the logic around it? Cut in drug research spending = less research being done = less cures for diseases, etc. 6. \\\"Uncle: Personal cites really aren't too useful in this debate. I'm not saying you're lieing, but there really isn't a way to tell if you actually have such an uncle. I could just as easily have an uncle in England whose live was saved by universal health care. Canada and England: First, let me point out that these are individual examples. If these were widely reciprocated, then that would be great (actually, it'd be bad, but whatever), but fortunately, they aren't. Additionally, each of these countries has a better health care system then ours: . http://www.photius.com...; - As far as my Uncle goes, take it for what it's worth. I don't believe that it is issue with him. I think the overall service from a government ran hospital sucks. I am not going to sit here and lie to you, this is a debate and the point isn't to lie and win. I'm not worried about wins/losses, I'm hoping to help America understand. Can you give an example of a country that has a large amount of people that has a very good universal health care system? As far as those countries having a better health care system, that means nothing to me. I realize our health care system is bad, you don't have to tell me that. I can tell you that the U. S. has some of the most top notch health care as far as the care goes. We have more technology than most countries. I really have no care for how our health care system ranks right now, because something needs to be done. Being the best health care system doesn't mean there health care is good. It means that they have a decent system. Does it mean they have the most technology and are helping there patients out better than U. S. hospitals? NO Your Points: 1. \\\"Democracy In a democracy, people choose. America is a democracy. America wants universal health care. \\\" I want to first start out by saying the \\\"liberal media\\\" wants universal health care. That was very brave of you to sum up from 3 articles that \\\"America wants universal health care. \\\" Your right, everyone has a right to health care. And everyone does. If you are uninsured, you have the right to health care. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it helped me out. The individual and not the government or doctors should get the choice to determine what amount of health care coverage, if any, is appropriate for my needs. My New Points : - Look at other government ran agencies out there. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is a great example of another government ran agency. I can tell you what, I don't hear much, if any good about those places. Workers are always crabby, you wait forever, and the service sucks. If your experiences are different, let me know where you live. When you have the government run agencies, it brings politics into the whole issue and that messes things up overall. - Government health care would decrease patient flexibilities. Before you start saying it would be more flexible, tell me if the government paid for everything under one plan, would you be able to get free eye surgery, breast implants, facial surgery, etc? Your probably saying, no because these things aren't needed. Well, what if you got in an accident and your face was damaged. Who decides what is needed and what is not? Sounds like a big headache to me! Since I really have no characters left. Good Luck!\",\n \"Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple. Thanks for the welcome! I agree with your introduction. This is no debate about how the government spends money or how much it takes in. It is definitely about where the funds come from. I also agree with you on the points that a government must take in money and funds in order to ensure the normal continuance of society and that government is necessary for commerce in today's society. I even agree that if you are living day to day, you cannot afford to pay extra taxes that the wealthy can afford to pay. However, I disagree that the wealthy are more likely to keep their money in secret \\\"offshore accounts\\\" than spend it or invest it. This is a bad idea for a couple reasons: Firstly, there is no prospect for growth. Secondly, due to inflation, the money will continually be devalued over time at a rate of a couple of percent per year. I also disagree that commerce only benefits business owners and the super wealthy. The truth is that commerce exists because it helps both sides. It benefits the people who actually receive items that are useful to them from these establishments as well as the sellers, and if it did not, it would not exist. And above all, I disagree that there is anything \\\"simple\\\" about it. Right now, the people who struggle day to day are financially gouged by tax on necessities, and the 'wealthy' have to give up more of their money to pack the wound. It would be far better if all people were taxed equally on non necessities. It is generally understood that all people should have an opportunity to grow and improve their conditions. Why should we allow a system which by definition taxes economic progress and stunts that growth? I would much prefer life in a system which facilitates everyone's economic progression equally instead of limiting it after a certain point. Finally, I maintain that the wealthy do not usually become wealthy at the expense of others or \\\"society\\\", but rather become wealthy because they worked harder and smarter.\",\n \"Universal Health Coverage The united states government cannot become an insurance company. Everyone is wants universal healthcare. if everyone gets insured, Great! But using the governments money is not an option. Right now, anyone can get healthcare, but instead of insurance companies paying the difference, the government does. If we create government agencies to insure people, we are not only paying to insure people, but we are paying to run the agencies themselves. Either way our government pays. Government based insurance doesnt solve the financial problems our current healthcare poses. Also, if everyone can get insurance from the government for dirt cheap prices, everyone will regardless of their standard of living. With that many people enrolled in the program and at such low prices, the government is continually gunna have to poor money into the program. It'll become a never ending money pit that we will never be able to repeal. In other words... an Economy Buster. We need to find ways to incourage people to invest in insurance, not give it to them at the governments expense. If nothing else, our current state gives people a greater incetive to move up in life. Finally, if the government gets THAT involved in health care, its gunna start passing laws that attack the prices. Though i agree the prices are too high, we cant cap them off via law. That WOULD be socialism, and socialism has never done anyone any good. Especially a people as wealthy as us. It only creates lazy people and very poor economies. Government funding of health care isn't socialism, but its a huge step toward socialism, and socialized Anything is gunna be bad for this country. I guess what im trying to say is this. Yes, health care costs way too much Yes, there are way too many people who cant afford basic health care Yes, its a national problem but No, we cant give them government money because that would be taking everyone down with them. We would solve one problem, but create a dozen more\",\n \"Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life Response to Proposition's Counterargument against Effects on Economy\",\n \"The economy was mans worst invention Your economy would never result in equality. Someone might be happy and content with two pairs of jeans, someone else isn't happy unless they have five, or ten. I'm perfectly happy with my $10 phone. Someone else wants the latest gadget today. I like shopping in second-hand bookstores, other people want an iPad. You might be happy with a trip to the lake, others want to jet set four times a year. Our wants and desires aren't equal. Also you're not accounting for celebrity or popularity. Which occupation would you rather talk to, the astronaut who went to the moon, or the guy who pumps your gas? Some people are just more interesting and fun to be around. Time is a resource, and people would give celebrities more resources to spend time with them. Should a doctor be paid the same as a carpenter? Yes, both jobs are important. However one requires a year of training, the other ten. Why would anyone work so hard to be a doctor, when they can get the same benefits by studying for only a year? If people aren't given incentive for hard work, then they won't work hard. If they are given incentives and rewards for hard work, then people work harder. There is great disparity in pay. I read a study that said a kindergarten teacher's value to the economy works out to be about $350,000 a year. Are kindergarten teachers paid that much? No. Should they be? Yes. Some jobs should have higher salaries, others less. But it is a supply and demand economy. Prices rise and fall based on demand. If everyone was paid the same, there would still not be equality. You also have to consider what people do with their money. Say we start over, and everyone makes $60,000 a year. Some people like to party, some like to shop, some like to travel, some like to own property, some like to invest, some like to save. Within a few years after starting over, disparity would quickly return. I do agree with you that there should be jobs for all, and that people should be able to make a livable wage. But we as a race will never be able to truly create an \\\"equal\\\" society. The reason why is because we are all different, complex creatures. We will never get rid of wants or desires.\",\n \"A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea Two questions: 1) where does the money come from? 2) why not just reduce taxes by �2000 overall?\",\n \"Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools There's no reason to treat this any different from the other basic needs like housing, food, water etc. and we still have to pay for those as well. Instead we should just make sure that the situation where there are people with too little money to even pay for these basic needs cannot occur, for example by paying decent unemployment benefits.\",\n \"Utilitarianism is inherently unjust Your main argument is that laws are based on utilitarianism and laws are needed for society. First, I would argue that laws are not always based on what yields the most benefit, but what is morally right. For example, it would benefit the majority of America if we made it legal to steal from the top 2% of America. 98% of Americans would benefit. However, we do not consider it a moral action, so it is illegal. Also, there is a distinction between justice (as in pertaining to law) and justice (as in giving each their due). The legal judicial system does not always give people what they are due. And third, judicial laws are constantly changing, so they cannot be used as a criterion for moral actions. Now in response to your critiques of my arguments: 1. Basic laws are written to preserve safety, yes. But this does not mean that utilitarianism is the backbone of moral laws, or that utilitarianism is just. 2. A law for the greatest good disregards the small group. Slave laws followed Utilitarian logic. Even though a portion of the population was treated as less than human, the majority of the population benefited. Laws against murder are laws because of human worth, not because of utiliarianism. Another utilitarian action would be genocide of people without a job. It would mean less money spent on welfare and unemployment benefits. The government would have more money to give to the remaining 90% or so of Americans who have jobs. 3. Utilitarianism is always unjust (not giving people their due) because it holds that ends justify means. At its base, it accepts that a person's inherent worth can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. Whether the action is committed or not, the acceptance that human worth is not always the ultimate end denies people what they are due. Therefore, it is unjust.\",\n \"Universal Health Coverage \\\"What about the people who work two jobs and can barely feed their families? What about all of the factory workers being laid off? What about the millions of unemployed Americans who cannot afford health care?\\\" -Im not saying they dont need it. They do. Ive already addressed that. What I'm saying is, How is it fair to those who have earned enough money to pay their own way that those who haven't win a free ride? \\\"This is the slippery slope argument, making a last comeback from the grave. I do not propose that we pay people's bills for them, nor does anybody. What I do propose is that we provide health insurance for all of our citizens, based on need. If you want a country example, look at the booming economies in Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, - Oh, that's right! The USA is the only developed country not to provide health care for those who can't afford it!\\\" - but thats just it!! you ARE proposing we pay everyone's bills. Need I remind you??? You said, \\\"I propose that it [the government] purchase insurance (at discount, because of the number of plans that it would purchase) to cover those who cannot afford\\\" insurance.\\\" Insurance is a bill. What makes it any different from paying their water bill? They still need water to survive. Furthermore, my point is that if you start giving away free money, IT WILL NEVER STOP. Also, all of the countries you listed do have universal healthcare. They all also have poor economies and more civil unrest than we do. The United States may not have univeral healthcare, but we have a thriving economy and a good work ethic. The reason for that??? We haven't submitted to socialistic views on citizenship. Our free-market economy continues to thrive because we have not given free money. We have not SPOILED our citizens and we should not start now. \\\"OK. Now who's proposing socialized medicine? How much would this cost? Where does the money come from? It's millions, maybe billions or trillions more than my plan. This creates a massive government bureaucracy, and I thought that conservatism was against massive government. Oh, pardon me.\\\" - Maintaining low quality clinics would not be any more than paying monthly fees for insurance until the end of time. It would be next to nothing to fund anyway. With the removal of Medicare, you could already almost fund it. You under estimate how much we pour into medicare every year. That tied onto your proposed tax repeals and outsider donations would easily cover those costs. Also, My plan is not by any stretch of the imagination socialism. It is quite the opposite. It leaves people insentive to move up without a government piggy-back. It encourages people to work harder for better things. Your plan just wants to ride through the streets on a giant bus throwing money out to the poor. Giving free money is socialism. Not encouraging people to work harder. I would like to emphasize the difference again My plan gives people who need it healthcare, but leaves plenty of incentive to move up. Your plan just gives everyone free money. How can you honestly say that mine is socialism and yours is not??? Giving people free healthcare, will lead to them want more free government giveaways. The more they whine, the more people give it to them. It is the first step down a road we DO NOT want to go down. Socialzed healthcare is NOT the answer, and your plan IS socialized healthcare.\",\n \"The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 It seems my opponent has dropped the argument about people being smart about when to have kids. This being the case, it still stands then.Now, to move onto what my opponent has stated, I shall rebut or comment on every majort point:Re: Definition of povertyUsually oxfoddictionaries is reliable, but I really question that definition of the word poverty. What is it inferior to? If it is just inferior to anyone, then it could be said that everyone who is poorer than the richest person in the world is in poverty. That's the issue with that definition. it was commonly accepted that someone who can't afford their clothing, nutrition, and housing from their own assets would be considered impoverished.Right, the poverty threshold is what covers that. Someone who earns less than the threshold would be unable to afford those basic needs. I would like to point out that it would be basic clothing, housing, and food. Someone who spends exorbitantly on these items and can't afford it would not be in poverty. Someone who earns more than the threshold would be able to afford those basic items. Re: safety net programsI would prefer that the government did projects that created jobs, rather than just giving free money to people. The old proverb of give a man a fish, feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime comes to mind. Is it really helping someone in the long run to make them dependent on the government for their needs? I argue it is not. The government, instead, should be providing means in which a person can independently earn income for necessary items. There should be government programs that teach people how to become independent and earn their own money, rather than just giving hand outs. How can you argue it is better for a person to be dependent on the government rather than the government teaching them to be independent? For this reason I would argue there should not be safety net programs of the type we currently have. The safety net programs should be jobs that the governmetn offers. There's a ton of infrastructure improvement that needs to happen. Why not have the government employ those people who are needy instead? Additionally, I'd argue we need more schools in America, as there is an over-crowding classroom problem[4]. The government could also offer them jobs building these schools we need. There are always projects that the government needs done. Once the government builds these schools, they can offer them jobs as teachers. However, I would say that while they were working building the school, they should be given the education needed to become a teacher. The government could do a lot of things to create more jobs, and this is the alternative to safety net programs and the minimum wage in my opinion. BY allowing companies to pay wages at $7.25 per hour or lower, we are allowing companies to gain more profits and forcing the federal government to pick up the bill.The thing about companies gaining more profit is that it allows them to sell things at a lower price. Companies, to compensate for the minimum wage increase, will sell things at a higher price. So, while some people may be making more money, it will mean they have to pay more for things anyways. For example, this study of businesses in Seattle after the minimum wage increase there saw prices of goods rise substantially[5]. We would likely see the same effect nationwide if we had a minimum wage increase. Does it help the poor any if they are earning more, but have to spend more for basic needs? No.I know this has nothing to do with the federal government, but if you want to help the poor out, how about getting rid of sales taxes and gas taxes? Both are essentially regressive taxes as they affect the poor more than the wealthy. In addition, I would argue we should get rid of the social security tax. Immediately, the poor would have 12% more money because the government wouldn't be taking money out of their pay check. Social security could instead be paid for by the income tax, if we were to increase it on the wealthy. These solutions would be better than raising the minimum wage, because they wouldn't cause prices of things to go up, and getting rid of sales tax and gas tax would mean prices would go down. Additionally, if property tax was gone, that would also lower the rates of rent on apartments, which would help the poor even more. So, why not cut all of these taxes to make things affordable for the poor instead of raising the minimum wage? The government is the reason many things cost so much for the poor.Sources:[4] https://nces.ed.gov...[5] http://www.washington.edu...\",\n \"The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all. While it may look good on paper, implementing a universal college for all program would be much less good in practice. There are two ways such a plan could be paid for; the federal government or a tax on the wealthy. The Government does not have the money to implement such a program, and robbing the wealthy is unfair. If, like Pro, you believe that \\\"Our country has always been capable of providing free college due to our excess in wealth.\\\", I encourage you to look at the Federal Debt Clock. http://www.usdebtclock.org... The clock shows that our federal debt is over 19 trillion dollars. Bernie Sanders' website says that the proposed plan for universal college would cost around 75 billion dollars per year. Can you imagine adding 75 billion dollars every single year to our federal debt? The results would be catastrophic. However, there is another idea, attributed to Bernie Sanders. This idea involves taxing the wealthy the amount of money it would cost for all the youth in the country to go to college. Why should the rich have to pay 75 trillion dollars a year for other people to go to college? \\\"They must pay their fair share\\\" is the usual response. However, these people worked very hard to get to the economic class they are in, and they have worked exceptionally hard to run their companies, creating jobs for Americans. This higher tax on the rich would be unfair, and amounts to legal thievery. Is there a problem with the college system? Yes there is. But burdening the federal budget or robbing the wealthy to make college free is not the way to go. http://www.usdebtclock.org... https://berniesanders.com...\",\n \"Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. My opponent's R3 argument revolves around inconsistency. He maintains that people who advocate for universal health care should also be in favor of universal food, clothing, shelter, etc. Now while he brings up some good points in terms of discussion, he has very little merit in terms of DEBATE. This dialog is not solely about the exchanging of ideas, but about proving and disproving the resolution. As Con, my beliefs are irrelevant -- I simply must explain why people who may be for UHC should *NOT* also be in favor of universal food, shelter and clothing. My opponent has affirmed his very own inconsistency by continuously pointing out his reasoning as to why universal food, shelter, clothing AND health care are all unfavorable. Therefore, Pro is suggesting that instead of just promoting ONE \\\"bad\\\" idea (universal health care), liberals should be promoting FOUR bad agenadas. How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Thus if you are a fiscal Conservative and AGAINST universal health care, chances are you would also be against universal food, shelter and clothing... so why would you want people advocating for those things? Especially at a time like this, where it's likely that more liberal agendas will be taken into consideration now that the Bush regime is coming to an end. Therefore if you are in opposition to universal food, shelter and clothing, you should vote Con, as you agree that those \\\"nutsos\\\" who advocate for UHC shouldn't also be pushing for more universal provisions. To those that DO support universal health care, you shouldn't also support universal food, shelter and clothing and here's why: it would turn us into a communist nation. Granted Pro has used the \\\"why shouldn't the government provide the even more important things in life\\\" logic, but as I've pointed out, even if food, clothing and shelter ARE greater necessities than health care (which they usually are), it doesn't mean that we should resort to being a communist nation, as it would hurt us - the United States - economically and politically both domestically and globally. So to re-cap, it is possible that we provide UHC that grants us BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR A FRACTION OF THE COST. This benefit would apply to everyone regardless of economic status. Supporting this one notion in particular does NOT mean that you should support communism and all that comes with it (social repercussions, for one). Pro has not provided one reason as to why you SHOULD support communism, except to say, \\\"Why not?\\\" or \\\"it could be easily argued they they should go all the way\\\" in referring to providing universal relief... except Pro didn't explain WHY 'they' should go all the way. Essentially, Pro has been advocating for communism yet does not support this reasoning other than to say \\\"it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important.\\\" I disagree. I say that if providing universal goods for all of the basic life needs would make us communist, then screw it -- we don't wanna go down that path for innumerable reasons (most of which have little if any relevance to this debate). However if it's possible that health care is provided WITHOUT having to be communist - or without having to raise taxes through the roof - then I'm all for it. It's as simple as that. Pro has attempted to skew my words, the facts, and provide misguided reasoning to get you to see his side. For instance, \\\"I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. \\\" Here Pro leaves that bit about pooling resources in (parenthesis) as if it's a little side note, when really, it goes against everything I have been arguing. I have said repeatedly that I do not believe in the US being communist, and yet Pro accused me of supporting universal goods... even though... I am against those things as Con...? Hmm, okay. The truth is that I *would* be in favor of providing universal food, shelter and health care IF it was of no expense to me or any other of my fellow Americans (regardless of how rich they were). However that would be pretty impossible and could never really be an option, so why bring it up? Pro was attempting to present me as a Communist by saying \\\"if we could afford it\\\" I would support it. That's not true at all. I'm very much aware that if we pooled our resources together we could certainly afford those things. However I am not advocating for us to pool our resources together and either are those who are in favor of UHC. By supporting UHC, you wouldn't be asking for a great increase in taxes (IN FACT IT WOULD SAVE YOU MONEY), whereas providing all of those universal goods would be very expensive AND require the pooling of funds... so AGAIN, I am not in favor of those things. Next my opponent attempts to argue that health care is far more easily accessible and affordable than the reality. First of all, his assumption that people are choosing to spend their money on cell phones or car paymemts is a blatant lie. I've already addressed in previous rounds how this assumption is unsupported and uncited, most likely because it is untrue in most cases. If Pro wanted to argue otherwise, he should have done so with factual evidence instead of just his own two cents about something he probably knows very little about. Second of all, even if that were true, Pro is ignoring the fact that UHC would also be cheaper (and of better quality) for those people who are already paying for their own private health insurance! I would also like to point out that the cost of health insurance is far more expensive than the $80 Pro claims it to be, at least where I live. It's also particularly convenient that he chose young people for his example, whereas in reality, it's the Baby Boomers - the elderly - that are suffering and paying incredibly high insurance rates (much higher than $80! Ha!) and cannot afford quality health care. The key word here is quality, as even those who can afford it are often subjected to crappy policies that cover little to nothing and are sometimes pointless or not worth it. But anyway, to re-cap, Pro is the one being inconsistent here: he continously explained why universal anything would be a bad idea, but goes on to state why people should advocate for not just one but all of these things...? By his logic, you should not support one and not the other. Well a lot of people support the one regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, so if he really thinks these things are all a bad idea, he should not logically conclude people support 4 bad ideas instead of just 1. Now if he's only saying that supporting one and not the other doesn't make any sense, again he is wrong: people should not support universal food, shelter and clothing because it would turn us into a communist nation (and Pro hasn't explained why that wouldn't be a bad thing). Supporting these things would also significantly raise our taxes, whereas supporting UHC would not. It would in fact be CHEAPER and BETTER QUALITY insurance. Pro has not disagreed with this. So right here, we can see how there is no inconsistency, but simple logic in supporting UHC. For instance, I now have health insurance, but UHC would improve the quality and cost of health care for all. Charging tax payers for other universal needs would NOT benefit me or many others. Therefore I - a supporter of UHC - do not support those other policies, and have successfully negated the resolution.\",\n \"Universal health care is a legitimate \\\"burden\\\" on the tax payer. People pay for public utilities such as road and people pay for education as well. But do people who don't drive recklessly ask for money back when roads are damaged? Do people who send their children to private school ask for all their money back? We place this burden on the state because of equality of opportunity. No man should be denied the right to live his life.\",\n \"Is the Right Wing Better Than the Left Wing I would like to argue your point that all three are key strengths in the free market system. Yes, a little welfare is fine. One trillion dollars of it? Not so much. I like how you referred to minimum wage as a \\\"living wage\\\". In all honesty a person does not need $10.25/hr. to live. People are doing just fine on the current one. Everyone would like to think that raising the minimum wage is such a wonderful and righteous thing to do. In fact, it would damage much more than it would help. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- Why should the government pay for your health care? Look at the countries you have provided in your little story abouy Walter White. Each of the economies is going to Hell in a handbasket. This is partiallly attributed to each providing health care to their citizens. It's funny you should bring up this fact. The only place I could find talking about the link between health care and mortgage default was SSRN. This is not exactly unbiased information, considering the whole organization was bulit upon how \\\"good\\\" social security is. Distributing universal health care has many downsides that you conviently side-stepped. Yes, it would dissuade people from clinging to low-end jobs. However, with universal health care comes great taxation. Especially on the small business owners. The small business owners happen to be the mostly the ones offering jobs that aren't considered low-end. if the small business owners get hit hard by the new tax, they will not keep offering those jobs. Thus leading to higher unemployment and fewer quality jobs. This point furthur points to the current incompatece of the Obama administration. If they facts you present are true, then why doesn't Obama (an undoubtly left-sided president) revoke the ACA? Your facts don't solidify the benefits of universal health care, they point to Obamacare's failure. WELFARE- The most overused word in the welfare arguement is opportunity. Why on Earth should a hard working business owner pay for a lazy bum's nessecites, when the bum isn't making a solid effort to find a job. Take Star Parker, an ex-welfare recepiant's, words as an example. \\\"The welfare system enslaves the poor on a subsidized plantation.\\\" She is 100% right. Look through the eyes of the welfare recipient. Why should they get up and find work if Uncle Sam is going to send them a check twice a month. They're the ones not taking the initiative to get a job, not recieving unequal opportunity. If a government is to cut back welfare spending, this is the idea. The market provides people with equal opportunity, some just don't take the innitiative. Free market capitalism has lead to the highest standard of living, for the mosft number of people, since the history of mankind. Liberalism is based on \\\"Robin Hood\\\" ideology; Take from the rich and give to the poor. Liberalism limits the upward progression of the masses. Why would anyone look for work if they recieve a check on the first and fifteenth of every month. A relocation of cash only reduces the already dim initiative of the 'less fortunate\\\" MINIMUM WAGE- Why on earth would someone doing fine on thier minimum wage salary suddenly get paid almost a 50% increase. They are doing a job that most likely is unskilled labor. (i. e. McDonalds) They are doing a job that pays quite handsomly for the amount of training and experience required. The more you pay a worker, the less you can afford to pay other workers. If you pay too much, you can;t fill other jobs. That is the main problem with a raise in the minimum wage. Unemployment will take a turn for the worst if the minimum wage increases, only putting more people on government subsidized programs. Do CEOs get payed a lot? Yes. Is it too much? Probably. However, the people working at McDonalds and the CEO of McDonalds have very different workloads.The CEO deserves to get payed many times the salary of the cashier. You seem to be preaching a less harsh punisment for petty crime. Petty crime that's left alone can grow into something much more malicious. I have upheld burden of proof that right wing governments are far more beneficial to a country than it's counterpart.\",\n \"Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life. Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.\",\n \"The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care TheLibertarian has failed to respond to any of my points or ideas; which are, in brief: 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance. Thank you for reading.\",\n \"The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. First, parameters. Universal Health care: any system of health care that the federal government pays for for all citizens Other than that, I think we're fine. If you feel other parameters are necessary, let me know. My case: The question that is important in this situation is: \\\"What is the purpose of a government?\\\" The answer to this question is that a government is supposed to protect the rights of the people. The people form governments to escape the so-called state of nature, in which they are completely free, but their rights have no protection. In a state of nature, one would have all the rights in the world, but they would have no protection. One's right to own property becomes useless when it can easily be taken away by a corrupt individual. So, governments are instituted to protect people's basic rights, limiting freedom as necessary so that the government can ensure that the people have basic rights. With this in mind, it becomes very clear that in no way is the federal government obligated to provide universal health care. Universal health care is in no way necessary in order for us to protect rights, and funding it requires raising taxes, and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms. Because of this, I have but one contention. Contention 1: Government health care is not necessary for the protection of rights, and therefore should not be provided. The purpose of universal health care is to help those who cannot afford health insurance pay for health care. People obviously do have the right to live healthily, and the government must ensure that they can exercise this right, sure. But, universal health care goes far beyond this point. There is no need to give the 90% who can afford health insurance the benefits, nor is it necessary to foot the whole health bill for those who can pay for at least some of the costs. Paying for health care in the form of welfare, that is, only giving people what they need is much more appropriate, so, in short, universal health care is the wrong idea.\",\n \"Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions As I believe universal healthcare should be implemented in the United States, I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments. Jumping right in, my opponent says that Universal healthcare should not be implemented because of cost, yet shortly afterwards admits that it could be paid for. If we CAN pay for something that will improve our country and the happiness of our citizens, something that I believe should be a basic human right, then I believe we absolutely should. My opponent also says that there are other healthcare systems that are better and more cost effective; if so, please tell me more about them, because I think Universal healthcare is a good system that is most likely our best option. If you know of a better system, let us know more about it. Furthermore, a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy. The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030. What that means is that the income in a typical American family would be about $10,000 higher annually, and the unemployment rate would go down by about 2%, or 500,000 people every year (1). And that's only with a decrease of 1.5%! It would save the average person money on healthcare, bolster their health, and thus make them more productive workers. It also helps reduce \\\"job lock\\\", and encourages small businesses and entrepreneurs by \\\"leveling the playing field\\\". For many people, their only access to healthcare is as a benefit through their job, forcing them to either stay or lose their coverage. With universal healthcare, it is much easier for people to choose a career they actually like, or start their own business, which helps money flow in our economy (2). My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as Donald Trump should not have healthcare provided for them because they can pay for it themselves. However, the average taxpayer would not be paying for Donald Trump's healthcare, as Donald Trump would theoretically be paying MORE taxes than them, and that extra money would help Universal Healthcare work. A homeless unemployed man can't pay for his own healthcare, but Donald Trump can easily pay for healthcare for dozens of people, and if his taxes are already higher, he is helping insure other people, and healthcare should not be denied to anyone. To address my opponents' concern that Universal healthcare would create a conflict of interests, I will just say that I am obviously arguing for a Universal Healthcare system done right, not simply a corrupt replacement of our current system. Of course if it is not implemented properly, such as in the scenarios my opponent outlined, then the results could be less than ideal. But if implemented carefully and properly, as I believe it should and could be, than these scenarios would all be avoided, and the payoff would be huge. My opponent says that health is more than just having access to a doctor, that the Americans should change their lifestyle, and that the government should regulate food and the environment. While this is certainly true and we agree on this point, it is irrelevant to this argument. Just because having Universal Healthcare won't magically solve all of the health problems in America does not mean that it should not be implemented, and even if Americans all managed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle and our environmental problems were all solved, people would still need access to western medicine or prescription medication on certain occasions. There is a reason that life expectancy goes up alongside the advance of medical science. The government could easily implement a Universal Healthcare plan AND do more to fix the problems with our environment and food supply. As for the actual implementation of an effective Universal Healthcare plan, yes it might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Every other major western country has implemented a Universal Healthcare plan of some sort, and I believe that if EVERY OTHER similar country has done it, we Americans can probably manage someway or another. Obamacare is an example of a healthcare plan that has many problems, and I agree that it could have been implemented much more effectively, but the fact is, it HAS been implemented, and an improved system could easily enough be put it its place. My opponent also brings up Bernie Sanders; while this debate is not about the election, you cannot say that a candidate can't win when they won 8 out of 9 of the last primaries. And that is a perfect example of how something difficult can still work. However, the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. So for the sake of this argument, we should both assume that proper implementation is indeed possible. Now I will present some of my own arguments for Universal Healthcare: I think that in our economy, all people should ethically be given access to healthcare, and that it should be a basic human right. Not everyone can afford healthcare, but most people need it at some time. Making people choose to either pay thousands of dollars to insurance companies that give them limited benefits, or die of disease is not morally right in my opinion. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies have become much too overpriced and have too much leverage over people, given that their services are often essential. As I said before, America is one of the only advanced western civilizations that STILL does not offer Universal Healthcare, and most countries that do, such as Sweden or Denmark, have happier average citizens. For example, in Denmark, citizens are about 77% happy, and in the United States, only 70% (3). One of the main reasons for this is the difference in our healthcare systems. Given the money that Americans already spend on taxes, we should absolutely get Universal Healthcare coverage without having to pay anything more. Money could be relocated from other areas where tax dollars are spent is excess, such as military spending. So a good Universal Healthcare plan would be essentially free (it would still be paid for by taxes, true, but the amount people are taxed would not increase), and it would greatly benefit our citizens. A properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would boost our economy, increase the health, lifespan and happiness of Americans, and generally improve our country, all without costing the average American anything more than what they already pay in taxes, bringing us up to par with other advanced western countries. And I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that! (1) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (2) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (3) http://acculturated.com...\",\n \"should rich people pay higher taxes I'm fighting for lower taxes for all Americans. Which is why I say repeal the 16th amendment. Nobody should have to give a portion of their paycheck to the government. You make these claims about the rich paying next to nothing, yet you provide zero sources to support your claims. I understand the flexibility but I do not believe that a successful businessman needs to pay a higher percentage of their income to the government than the average american. Yes Bill Gates can make due with 71 billion instead of 72 billion but there is no reason he should have to give up a billion dollars to the federal government just because he is successful. What you are advocating is socialism, spreading weath around. Taking from the right and giving to the poor. Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money.\",\n \"Basic income tax should be abolished Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society\",\n \"let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient.It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available). In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned. My arguments are:The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care. Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place.Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"The United States should implement a flat tax, regardless of income. Hi there! Welcome to Debate.org, I can see this is your first debate. The law that you are proposing is unfair because if a person earns 10k a year, for that person to pay 2.5k in taxes is a lot of money and that person may have problems to buy food or to pay the doctor, but for a person who earns 10M, 2.5M is a much comfortable sacrifice inspire of paying more (he still can pay the doctor). From the point of view of the government, a flat tax that every one can pay may be insufficient to maintain itself, not that governments have the duty to preserve the happiness of their citizens by redistributing the wealth, making sure they don't suffer from hunger of illness, they can get education, etc. There is no doubt that the USA government is dysfunctional in many aspects, and this law is likely to make it even more dysfunctional by collecting less taxes and damaging the re-distribution. By the way, a flat tax means everyone pays the same no mater what is your income (but we will not debate about this). pd. I would prefer is you replay by making a youtube video.\",\n \"2) More economic incentives to find a job Our plan will create greater incentives for the unemployed to find a job. This is good for state and society because the unemployed will faster become independent from external support and start working and making their own contributions through taxes. Such effect would lead to smaller unemployment rate in the future. First, the unemployed will have an economic incentive to find a job. All people have different consumption preferences, which means they need different goods to satisfy their needs. Under status quo, the unemployed receive a monetary benefit; as money is a universal means of exchange, people prefer to spend it according to their preferences, not the state's or society's. There are cases when the unemployed sacrifice some of their basic needs for another good - it could be a harmful one, such as drugs, as well as a 'neutral' one, such as an MP3-player. They conclude that spending money on things other than basic needs will be more beneficial for them (i.e. bring them more satisfaction and happiness); they make an economic choice and allocate resources available to them, as any other member of society would do with her salary, scholarship, etc. If our plan was implemented, the unemployed would still be able to sustain their living, but they would be deprived of the opportunity to spend money freely, i.e. on things other than basic needs. In other words, they wouldn't be able to make the same unrestricted economic choice as other members of society. Under status quo, limited amount of money is the only constraint for the unemployed; under our plan, they will also face the limited amount of spending options. Saving money or substituting one good with another wouldn't help them purchase desirable goods; thus, the unemployed will be incentivized to find a job to get rid of this spending option constraint.\",\n \"The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.\",\n \"It would be much simpler and fairer There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.\",\n \"Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life response to proposition's counterargument against freedom of choice\",\n \"Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System. I affirm the resolution that the USFG should create a universal health care system similar to Britain's NHS. I believe that this will lead to a healthier society, a more productive work force, and a more stable economy. With this plan, people will not have to work as much to pay off outrages medical bills. Since they will not be working so much, they will be better workers at their current jobs; \\\"A Happy employee is a good employee.\\\" Lastly, with less people in debt, the keynesian savings ratio of 90/10 (spend 90% of the income and save 10%) can find its way back into the fiscal society.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument.\",\n \"basic healthcare is a right everyone has a right to take what they need to survive from the earth, the resoures. food, healthcare, the basics. when we create property rights and exclude people from resources, we have to make up for it in our laws. people may or may not be able to afford healthcare under a free market. therefore, unless we're willing to give people land and property and a way to make ends meet, the government is obligated to ensure a basic to everyone.\",\n \"Universal health care would amount to welfare for the uninsured. The government should not create a health care system that is aimed primarily at helping the poor and uninsured. As such, it becomes merely another wealth-transfer program.\",\n \"People Need a License to Live 400 dollars sounds sort of reasonable. I don't think we're going to renew those things every three years, though. A person's right to live should not be based on their income and net worth, that's a direct violation of the Constitution, which clearly states that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights do not cost anything, they are allowed to everyone regardless of money. I suggest you specify what's in this \\\"common sense\\\" test. I don't think people should be killed if they're stupid, I believe that anybody can be educated. I think that most people can speak their primary language fluently, unless they're mute, in which case they should not be killed. I also think that we should not kill people because they have any mental or physical defects. Many people are handicapped and would not be able to pass the fitness test. Stephen Hawking is a genius. You are sick to think that we should kill people if they have a disability. That is one philosophy you share with the Fuhrer- he strongly supported a euthanasia plan and dumped handicapped people from rooftops, not worrying about their screams. Also, kids are not going to work in mines for 100 hours every year. You are batty.\",\n \"Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! So let me get this straight, you HONESTLY expect the readers in here to AGREE with you that it's OKAY that MOST employees who make LESS than $15/hour do NOT get offered ANY benefits! No Sick Pay No Holiday Pay No Vacation Pay No Disability Pay no Life Insurance, no Health Insurance, no Dental Insurance, no Optical Insurance, No Perks, No Discounts, No Retirement Benefits No 401k, no Pension!!!! You are CRAZY if you think MOST Americans think thats \\\"ok\\\". Also WHAT \\\"false\\\" information do you CLAIM that I made? THAT statement I just made is COMMON SENSE and EVERY poll EVER taken will AGREE with me!!! EVERYONE gets SICK, EVERYONE will eventually get SOME form of Cancer if they live long enough, EVERYONE NEEDS their Teeth Cleaned every 6 months, EVERYONE NEEDS a YEARLY phyiscal exam to make sure they have no diseases or illnesses!! Again EVERYONE NEEDS healthcare or else they will IMMEDIATELY go into BANKRUPTCY with ANY medical condition that they acquire!!! And the people who NEED health insurance/care the MOST are the people who make MINIMUM WAGE! Just because SOME People are SELFISH and HOSTILE towards the poor and very low income that make SO LITTLE that they are eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid does NOT mean that is RIGHT or FAIR or JUST behavior, it's SELFISH behavior. By the way EVERYTHING you are sharing is from CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN leaning sources. The Affordable Care Act (NOT \\\"obamacare, that name is RACIST) helped TENS of MILLIONS of Americans GET insurance who BEFORE were NOT offered insurance by their employer and others who were DENIED coverage because of Pre-existing conditions! EVERY FIRST world country ON THE PLANT OFFERS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for ALL of their citizens EXCEPT the US!!!!!! HOW do you expect people making FIVE to TEN dollars an hour to AFFORD healthcare on THEIR income on the PRIVATE market? MOST of us have SOME type of Pre Existing condition, so that means HIGH RISK insurance that costs HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of dollars. HOW do someone making MINIMUM WAGE afford healthcare WITHOUT government assistance? THEY DONT!!! \\\"hard work\\\" has NOTHING to do with what happens at work. It's IF your supervisor or manager LIKES you which determines the SIZE of your yearly raises and IF or WHEN you are given a promotion, WAKE UP to how EMPLOYMENT WORKS. I work in HR and know EVERYTHING about the realities of employment and promotions and raises.\",\n \"Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! \\\"This is AMERICA where you can do WHAT you want WHERE you want WHEN you want.\\\" Really? So why can't employers pay entry-level employees less and deny them employee benefits until they prove themselves? I think you should change that statement to 'this is America where you can do what you want where you want when you want as long as it does not contradict my opinion'. \\\"YOU would only COMPLAIN that I'm using LIBERAL sources anyway.\\\" How would you know? At this point, it's too late for you to provide a source anyway, but I would've looked at any source - liberal or not. \\\"YOUR resources are all CONSERVATIVE sources.\\\" Actually, one's unbiased and the other is bordering on socialist. I used Cornell Law University for an (unbiased) interpretation of the tenth amendment, and I used a poll from an article from a website advocating for universal healthcare - a socialist concept. \\\"FACTS are FACTS!\\\" What facts? You just typed your opinion each round (no sources) and capitalized every other word. \\\"the BOTTOM get paid AWFUL wages with NO benefits.\\\" So why doesn't this 'bottom' find a job that pays well? Why doesn't this 'bottom' start their own business, or at least something part-time on the side? I doubt that this 'bottom' you refer to is stupid. \\\"almost EVERYONE can agree THAT is WRONG.\\\" Who is 'almost everyone'? Do you have a poll to prove it? Some sort of study conducted by a credible organization? Anything? Or are you just assuming that 'almost everyone' sides with you because 'almost everyone' shares your mentality, your beliefs, and your opinions? Look, I know you mean well and you want to help the so-called 99%, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Thanks for this debate and I hope we can do it again sometime.\",\n \"Classic Robert Gauntlet Tournament: The current tax system should be replaced by the fair tax. Thank you YYW for your prompt response last round. I'm going to attempt to quote portions of my opponent's arguments which are representative I larger portions of his argument. I'll elaborate on the quote when necessary. Impact to Individuals \\\"It would go equally to those with zero income and those who buy nothing in the course of a month, as well as to billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.\\\" By implication, the \\\"prebate\\\" proposed to correct for FT's inherent regressiveness amounts to the creation of a \\\"national welfare program\\\" \\\" It's funny that Warren Buffett is brought up here. Warren Buffett is commonly quoted as saying it's unfair his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him. This plan would actually fix those loopholes Buffett uses to avoid paying as much as his secretary. The prebate wouldn't amount to a national welfare. One of the reasons for the rebate ( besides providing a progressive tax element) is to insure nobody pays taxes on basic necessities. It doesn't matter if it's Bill Gates or a family living below the poverty level. Nobody should have to pay the government for the most basic stuff they need to survive. The prebate just happens to be the fairest and most economical way to insure nobody has to pay to live. Right now a family living at the poverty level pays 22 cents on every dollar they spend on imbedded taxes. This isn't even taking into account FICA social security etc. coming out of their payroll check. Under the FT plan, they would pay Zero percent. I repeat. Exempting people from paying taxes on basic necessities isn't welfare. It's just good policy. \\\"there is essentially no relationship between the rebate and the cost of living\\\" Actually there is. The prebate is based off of what somebody spends at poverty level. Poverty level spending is a cost of living index. The prebate does more than the current tax system to make sure families don't get taxed on basic necessities. The 22 percent imbedded tax is no longer there for poverty level spending. \\\"Even still, FT's revenue neutrality rests on the erroneous assumption that \\\"no matter how large a family's income, 100% of it is consumed every year,\\\" which is not the case. In reality, the percentage of a person's income being consumed by expenses falls as income rates rise.\\\" The FT revenue neutrality uses no such assumption. The plan exempts used goods from being taxed. Which is a key indicator that it isn't assuming 100% of income is taxed. Not to mention 100% of income not being used for tax exempt things, such as used cars, used houses, thrift shop purchases etc.. One of the attributes of the plan often promoted by FT proponents, is the fact that savings and investments will be untaxed. These are things not included in the calculations used to determine if it was revenue neutral. Even if we forget about what I just stated, money earned is typically spent at some point. If the millionaire doesn't spend his money then his unappreciative children or grandchildren will blow his money after he dies. Hell Paris Hilton isn't even waiting for her dad to die to blow his money. \\\"By implication, were FT was implemented, however, retirees who supplement their income with savings accumulated during a time when personal income was taxed would in effect be subject to double taxation\\\" This is only during the adjustment phase, and remember the prices already include an imbedded tax, so they are double taxed anyway. If you take away that 22% imbedded tax, add in the 23% fair tax and take into consideration the prebate than retirees are actually coming out ahead. Let's not forget retirees actually are triple taxed in the current system anyway. They get the tax on investments, typically taken out immediately or upon withdrawing. They also are responsible for corporate taxes because they're share holders, plus they pay that imbedded tax. I'll take double taxation over triple taxation any day. \\\"the FT's implementation would disproportionally harm young workers in the process of establishing their livelihoods as they purchase first cars, homes and pay for childcare.\\\" Most young workers just starting out would buy used homes and cars. These are things exempt from the fair tax. As far as child care is concerned, the imbedded taxes would be removed from that and a lot of subsidies already in place to help families afford child care would remain in place. There would be minimal to no impact on these individuals. \\\"an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower and middle incomes.\\\" Nope, even if Uncle Sam isn't taxing your paycheck, you still pay that 22% imbedded tax and with the prebate that would kill any taxes you paid on products up to the poverty level. So in reality poor people would pay zero taxes as opposed to the 22% imbedded tax and the payroll tax. Faulty Economic Logic \\\". The reality is that you can't have both gains in post-tax income and depreciating prices once embedded taxes are vacated,\\\" That's just a misunderstanding of what FT proponents are saying. Once the FT is implemented prices would immediately increase by the 30%. Obviously companies will try not to reduce prices once the tax is implemented, so they can easily keep their profit margin. However once their competitors start making market share grabs, the price will settle back to what it originally was before the FT was implemented. Incomes should remain the same. However the prebate when factored in would mean that less of your money will go to pay taxes. The FT is dangerous \\\"what is there to prevent a [federal] income tax from being from being imposed after a national sales tax has been enacted?\\\" Nothing! There is actually systems in place to insure this doesn't happen here is a quote from the following website.http://www.fairtax.org... \\\"No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. Moreover, concurrent with the repeal of the income tax, a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and prohibiting an income tax will be pushed through Congress for ratification by the states (filed as HJR 16 in the 110th Congress).\\\" So this the FT has a companion bill that always goes to vote with it. If a fairtax got implemented, we wouldn't end up with some 2 headed snake. \\\"Similarly, due to the increased transactional costs the FT would impose on state and local government, it is entirely foreseeable that the FT would actually necessitate states increasing their income tax rates just to achieve revenue neutrality. \\\" This isn't true either. The fairtax actually doesn't require states to collect it on the federal governments behalf. If states do collect it they will be paid a portion of the taxes collected to make up for the cost of collecting it. http://www.fairtax.org... I actually did this argument at the last minute. I hope this rushed first draft is easy to read and comprehend.\",\n \"Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. Those were very nice arguments in favor of universal health care. But my point was that the same (and even stronger) argument could be made for universal food, shelter, water, transportation and clothing. Additionally, who deserves to live without the ability to communicate? So I guess a universal cell phones could also be well argued. But that's beside the point. Most of your argument had nothing to do with reconciling the inconsistency I cited. Health care falls below other human needs in degree of necessity, yet health care is the only need being called for by the left to be provided UNIVERSALLY by the government. In your defense you did not dodge the inconstancy completely. You did mention that some government programs provide food, shelter and clothing to the poor. But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally. So your examples still do not explain away the inconsistency in singling out health care as the one and only private service that should be socialized. A government that provided all of lives top necessities universally to its citizens would closely resemble a large commune-- therefore my reference to communism. In summary, you have not successfully argued against my point that if the univeral health care supporters were consistent they would support government providing all other basic human needs which are equally as or more important. You said yourself you don't even consider health care a necessity. So which is it? Are universal health care proponents blatantly inconsistent, or are they just trying to scoop up the freebie currently offered while they wait for universal food, shelter and clothing to hit the ballot?\",\n \"The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare I affirm the resolution that the United States ought to establish Universal Healthcare. This will be a values based debate there for my value [premise] for the round is societal welfare. Because when promoting and allowing Universal healtcare to a population it allows people to get a basic need that is no longer based on income. It allows the moral obligation as stated by the word ought in the resolution to also be fulfilled. My value criterion is Healthcare Equality. Based off of the word ' ought ' stated in the resolution , It denotes that there is a moral obligation. In this instance there is a obligation to serve people and allow them the right to health and well-being. As for societal welfare this can allow people to be healthier , and increase lifespans. Contention 1 : The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being. When people have healthcare that is good people are at a lesser risk for diseases that people with poor healthcare do and due to this , it is a given. In the current system , the more money you have the more efficient and comprehensive the healthcare you recieve. It has been proven that people who make $100,000.00 dollars a year will actually live longer than people who make $45,000.00 A year due to the inequalities in care. This alone has been examined here [ http://blogs.wsj.com... ] in this quote \\\"In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest. 6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years.\\\" This alone makes it quite evident that over the course of 20 years , the disparity has actually gotten worse socio-economically. By establishing a system of universal healthcare we can bridge the socioeconomic disparity or decrease the disparity by very sizeable margin. \\\" A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.\\\" Further examination shows that Macau ( China S.A.R ) , Japan , Andorra , San Marino , Hong Kong ( China S.A.R ) France , Switzerland , Sweden , Australia , Iceland , Canada , Italy , Monaco , Liechtenstein , Spain , and Norway all have higher life expectancies than the US and that is 13 of the 41 that rank above the United States in life expectancy. Most of these countries , Especially European ones and Japan , have a universal healthcare system of the sort that makes sure everyone is ensured and given medical care. Contention 2: The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting societal welfare. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal healthcare we are not promoting societal welfare which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. By supporting the moral obligation we can bring in a equality in healthcare that can improve lifespans , improve governmental accountability for it's people , follow a moral obligation , and promote societal welfare . For all of the stated above , I urge you must affirm.\",\n \"Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life 3) More social incentive to find a job\",\n \"Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life Vouchers for Basics of Life would Exacerbate the Economy\",\n \"The Negative Income Tax Thank you Olark for accepting, and as you said: may the best win. One of the main reasons why I support a negative income tax is that it's a very cheap and yet effective way to end poverty. My alibi is the \\\"Mincome\\\" project that was conducted back in the 70's in the 2 towns in Manitoba, Canada; the town of Dauphin and Winnipeg: http://america.aljazeera.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://basicincome.org.uk... Those below the fixed poverty line received a monthly cheque that allowed them to survive. In the beginning, the researchers predicted that this would encourage people to be lazy and that it would cost a lot of money. But in the end, none of the above turned out to be true. From those who benefited from this project, only pregnant mothers and students worked substantially less. This by the way, resulted in a higher number of students graduating. Also hospitalization and domestic abuse went down. The project started in 1975 but was ended in 1979, when a centre-right government came to power. For many years the results of this project have been forgotten, until a few years ago it caught the attention of Prof. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba. Now you might say that that these were small towns and that such a project couldn't work on a nation-wide level and that the people of Winnipeg and Dauphin feared that this project would end some day. Well for the nation-wide thing, I don't know to be honest. It has never been tested on such a large scale. But \\\"I don\\\"t find the \\\"temporary program\\\" argument very compelling. If people are irresponsible, will they really project four years into the future to decide how to behave?\\\" (quote from Prof. Evelyn Forget) Contrary to most basic income models, the negative income tax, would only give the amounted of money needed to the people who need it. That's why it would be a cheap way to de facto implement a basic income. There have also been other basic income (BI) experiments, like in Otjivero, Namibia and in Uganda, India and even In the US: http://www.spiegel.de... http://usbig.net... https://www.opendemocracy.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Namibian project also caught my attention for the following reasons: In 2 years, -the percentage of people living below the poverty line went from 76 to 36% -the percentage of under-nourished children went from +50% to less than 10% -the percentage of young adults graduating went from 60 to 90% -crime went down significantly Another interesting project is \\\"Bolsa familia\\\" in Brazil. Basically it's a negative income tax for poor families IF they send their kids to School: http://web.worldbank.org... As for the BI initiative in Switzerland, I'm crossing my fingers since I live there ;) It would be really useful for me since in a few years I will be going to University.\",\n \"basic healthcare is a right I will agree that is is a right of humanity to take what is needed to survive and that has become hard for people to do today due to population. Due to this population increase there are stories and markets that supply our needs to survive however healthcare should not be a basic right and if it were, it would be deadly to the society it was introduced.We see it right now in America where everyone is already or being forced to have healthcare, the average family pays about $16,000 a year.* The average family income falls in between $50,000-60,000.* This high healthcare cost is due to everyone being forced to have healthcare, even those who do not need it, the cost is high because completely healthy people are forced to pay for those who can't afford it. If healthcare were to be a basic right as it is becoming in America the cost of $16,000 per average family would go up drastically and due to the flood of immigrants, who are making a new life and can not be expected to pay anything, and the rise of poverty would add strain to the economy that would break it in the end. Some would retort that the government is there to distribute money to help the poor and underprivileged, raising the income of a family, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare cost. I put forth this question, \\\"Where does this money come from?\\\" If the government is giving money to the lower classes where does the money to do so come from? It comes from one of two sources, one source is that the government prints from the bank. That brings problems with itself in the form of inflation, the more a government prints money the more the value of the money goes down. An example would be Germany in 1921 After World War 1. Germany under war debts turned to printing money to pay it's debts off but the repercussions were traumatic to the country as at one point 1 US dollar equaled 800 German Marks. * Of course the more favored way is to tax the upper echelon for the money needed to give to lower class. Although there lies the poison apple that many countries are biting today. If one's country puts a heavy tax on the class that is sustaining the economy such as Walmart, Target, Ford, Apple, Xbox, and the \\\"1%\\\" that make all the money and provide all our needs to survive than those businesses and people would be making an income equal to a middle class family but still trying to support their businesses and slowly but surely the business would die off. Plus those working hard in the middle class and being taxed to death for the sake of the poor at one point would say, \\\"Screw this if I am working hard to make less than those who don't work than I would rather not work and get the benefits.\\\" This would led to a degenerate culture hellbent on playing the system to get more benefits and money till it breaks. A culture who tries to make everyone have the same standard of living by causing others to fall no matter what it is, whether it is healthcare, income level, or by giving different tax rates for different class levels is doomed to fail miserably. * http://www.ncsl.org... *http://www.mybudget360.com... *https://en.wikipedia.org...\",\n \"everyone should be equal Absolute equality is rather unrealistic but as a practical matter, It is important to relieve poverty and eastablish an equitable standard of living, Maybe not socialism but a heavily regualted version of capitalism like northern europe\",\n \"Unemployment benefit should be paid in the form of vouchers for food, shelter and the basics of life Vouchers for Basics of Life Limits People's Freedom of Choice\",\n \"Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility Let me address each of the individual points first, then I'll summarize: ----------------------------------------- YOU: Increased welfare benefits: -So were holding children and people unable to work, responsible for their own being if we dont have increased welfare? Welfare, no matter how much it increases, is not exactly a glamorous lifestyle and you can make way more doing anytihng from working at mcDs to picking trash. Besides that, it mainly goes to families with children and to the edlerly who cant work. ME: We are removing our responsibility to give to charity, support our parents, friends and fellow human beings who need it and placing it with a mandated program administered by the government. Welfare is just one method of decreasing the personal responsibility of the individual and placing it on the government. Do you disagree? ----------------------------------------- YOU: Increased social security benefits: -Saving money isnt an option for many. If we dont give social security benefits, most people will be either working until the day they die, or, if they cant work before that day, live on the streets. ME: Why isn't saving an option for many? People are already paying increased taxes for social security, why not let them keep more of thier money and let them save it responsibly? ----------------------------------------- YOU: Universal health care: -Stunt car driving? what in gods name are you talking about. Government sponsered health care is for the UNINSURED not the evil kennivels. Refer to the other two points above ME: Those advocating universal health care often cite European health care as an example. The ultimate goal of Liberals everywhere is universal health care for everyone, not just the uninsured. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Universal education: -Of course, less education = smarter kids. Im sure the family that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage has plenty of time to come home and teach their children how to read write and do math. What world are you living in? ME: People pay taxes and business pay taxes, a large portion of which goes to education. The more taxes that businesses pay, the less they are able to pay thier employess, and the more taxes people pay the less money they have to spend so what they do get paid goes less far. Personally I pay almost 30% out of my paycheck for income tax alone. Imagine if everyone instantly began making 30% more than they do now? Do you think paying for education would be a problem? (and we're just talking about income taxes). All of this aside, you seem to be conceding my point that universal education decreases personal responsibility. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Pro-abortion: -First of all, what the hell is \\\"pro-abortion\\\"? Do you think liberals go out, get pregnant and have an abortion, jsut for fun? I tihnk you mean \\\"pro-choice\\\" which only says abortion isnt legally impeedable by the federal government. Im not personally a fan of the act and if i were ever involved in a situation where abortion was an issue with a girlfriend/wife/sister/friend ect., i would definatley be opposed, but i cant push that opinion of federal law. No body has that right, (in my opinion). ME: By default a woman doesn't have a choice except not to get pregnant. The benefits of medical technology and trained doctors ALLOWS the woman to have an abortion. How can something that is a privledge and not a right NOT be legally impeedable by the federal government? At the very least this should be left up to the states to decide. This is beside the point though. I do think that people go out and have sex for the fun of it, and when they realize they got pregnant due to thier own irresponsibility, they get an abortion. Regardless of how you feel, the end result is less responsibility for the individual. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Anti-death penalty: -So instead of making the legal system take charge and try and rehabilitate and isolate, its more \\\"responsible\\\" to just kill the guy and move on? ME: So now the responsibility for the murderous behavior isn't on the murderer, it's on the government to rehabilitate/isolate/take care of him? You're proving my point. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Corperate Morality -Keeps Corperations accountable for the wages of their employees, thier effect of the enviornment and monopolization of the market. ME: As opposed to the people forming unions and taking pre-emptive action (such as leaving the corporation or boycotting thier product or service) to facilitate this change on thier own? ----------------------------------------- YOU: Anti-War -Makes govt responsible rather than our brave soldiers. ME: Are you claiming anti-war as a key Liberal position? Can you clarify? Do you mean anti-war as in pacifist or anti-war as in you don't like war? (who does?) War and the protection of the people is one of the governments core responsibilities, and is the primary reason behind it's creation, and hence the responsibility falls to the government and the military (including the soldiers) both. It is the people's responsibility to elect responsible politicians with a focus on protecting our country. Not going to war requires far less responsibility than making the decision to go to war. ----------------------------------------- YOU: Your argument is completely ridiculous ME: So far you've pretty much conceded my position on all these issues. Your argument seems to be with my stance on each of these issues, not with the fact that the liberal positions all decrease the personal responsibility of the individual. ----------------------------------------- I think your arguments are all a little misplaced. The main question of the debate is whether or not \\\"Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility\\\", and I explained how the liberal stance on each key liberal issue decreases the personal responsibility of the individual. You may disagree with my stance on these issues but I don't see how you can disagree with the topic of this debate. As a matter of fact, you seem indirectly admit it in your arguments. Who's to say that decreasing personal responsibility is bad in the first place? If what I'm saying is true and this is what Liberalism seeks, and you're a Liberal, be proud of your position and explain why reducing personal responsibility is a good thing. Your arguments seem very kneejerk.\",\n \"Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service Income Tax is unjust as the tax does not contribute anything positive towards any public service. The Income Tax simply pays off the national debt we owe to private banks. The private banks (Fed, Bank of England, ECB, most central banks) create the money out of thin air (i.e. they just print it when someone signs a mortgage, credit agreement etc). The problem here is that we (the general public) are paying with our real sweat equity (our general work and labour) to pay off a debt that has been created out of nothing. This is unjust as the debt goes into the coffers of the owners of the private banks and does not contribute to any social good. The solution would be to have a nationalised bank run by the government. Governments would then be voted in and out, judged on how economically productive they were for their citizens. This is an issue of momentous importance, so much so that the Constitutionalist Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is running on a manifesto to scrap the Income Tax in America, as it is an unjust tax which does not serve the majority of the population, and furthermore is unconstitutional. To help you understand this problem in more detail, a good number of documentaries have been produced on this issue. The best in my opinion are called 'Money as Debt', 'The Money Masters' and 'Aaron Russo: Freedom to Fascism'. I would suggest that you take a quick look at these films before you attempt to rebut this proposition - as many of the initial questions you may potentially have are likely to be addressed and answered by those films. Better yet, these films are free for anyone on Google video. In response to the counter argument opposite...to clarify, this point is extremely relevant to the debate. The debate is 'Basic Income Tax Should Be Abolished', and this is a very important point to stress in such a debate - income tax does not contribute to the public good. If the goal of government is to produce the most favourable public good for the majority, then it therefore follows that the Income Tax is a tax which should be abolished as it does not meet this criteria.\",\n \"The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system. Sorry for the confusion. Billy is still alive (although maybe like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he just can't work. Second, don't defer me to a website like that. I don't defer people looking for facts to Michael Moore (although he is amazing). But anyhow, the edges of the spectrum like to stretch the truth, and that is no exception. I found the article, and, since I haven't found that \\\"fact\\\" anywhere else, I find it hard to believe. And the average cost of healthcare, for Billy, might be 300% of his paycheck. It might cost more to the rich guys, but you can see how beautifully the Bush tax cuts worked, based on the same principle that you speak of. It is a sad thing, there really is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody has to pay. Truth is, just as the French have to pay for extra coverage, we don't need a comprehensive system. We just need basic necessities, paid for in a fair way. I wish I had more space, but basically, health is something we all deserve.\",\n \"The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. Wow, you really may be retarded... just kidding! Maybe... \\\"OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money.\\\" I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead. \\\"You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius.\\\" Typo, smart one... \\\"'Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.' Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems.\\\" Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself. \\\"'My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs.' There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters.\\\" Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care. \\\"'In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is \\\"one size fits all\\\" and it is given to people who don't need it.' According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance?\\\" Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours. \\\"I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care.\\\" You were saying that it isn't fair to give Bobby free health care and make Johnny pay. That's the classic anti-welfare argument. \\\"'I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff.' Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused.\\\" It's pretty simple, I am not giving more welfare to people, I am simply paying for their health costs if they can't afford it. \\\"It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word 'right' as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to 'right' to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it.\\\" Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy. \\\"Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care (\\\"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.\\\").\\\" That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that? \\\"So? What allows the government to say, \\\"We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich\\\"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the \\\"right to life\\\" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it.\\\" Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet. \\\"Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the \\\"right to life\\\" would be their choice of health care.\\\" So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me. Why you vote CON: 1. PRO has not shown why universal health care is any better than my plan that only pays for those who cannot afford health care. 2. People end up paying more and getting less under a universal health plan. 3. Universal health care is much less efficient and cost-effective as my plan is.\",\n \"The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. \\\"Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level.\\\" OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money. \\\"Taxes, read above, genius...\\\" This is what you said: \\\"...and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms...\\\" You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius. \\\"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.\\\" Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems. \\\"My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs.\\\" There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters. \\\"In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is \\\"one size fits all\\\" and it is given to people who don't need it.\\\" According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance? \\\"Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan.\\\" I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care. \\\"I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff.\\\" Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused. \\\"You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights.\\\" It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word \\\"right\\\" as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to \\\"right\\\" to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it. \\\"As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive.\\\" Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care (\\\"Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care.\\\"). \\\"Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff.\\\" So? What allows the government to say, \\\"We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich\\\"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the \\\"right to life\\\" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it. \\\"Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments!\\\" Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the \\\"right to life\\\" would be their choice of health care.\",\n \"Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple. This proves “that the rich are paying out proportionately to what they're earning”(pro). In fact, the ‘rich’ are paying nearly 200% of what they would be paying if everyone’s taxes were more simply proportional to their earnings (3). To elaborate: The top thousandth descending cumulative percentile makes 8.86% of all money made in the United States, but pays over 16% of all collected taxes (3). Then, the bottom 50%, which takes in nearly 12% of the nation’s income, has to pay less than 3% of the nation’s tax (3). Source (1) agrees that over 15% ($212 bil) of revenue from income tax goes to welfare programs; assuming that even 3% of this is used to help the lower 50% of people with income, their income taxes do end up being negative, meaning it only goes up from there. Additionally, less than 6% of income tax goes into transportation infrastructure (4), so how exactly are the wealthy more reliant on society? Furthermore, Pro’s entire argument is reliant on wealth being a zero point system. Really, one person’s wealth does not take away from another’s. When someone buys an iPhone, others still have their older phones. The ‘wealth pie’ is simply growing. Read (1). Finally, Pro’s sources… [1] and [4] are the exact same source, and BOTH times, it argues that the middle class is stingier with money than the upper class. [2] only focuses on France and Germany; it provides no statistics about the US and even explains that collected data could be an outlier. It does not even focus on exactly how many inherit their wealth. [3] argues that the wealthy do not create the jobs at all, so why would they be responsible for creating “temporary jobs”? And I do not want a system where everyone gives back equally. I want a system where everyone has an equal opportunity to grow… Sources (1) http://www.forbes.com... (2) http://wapo.st... (3) http://www.irs.gov... (4) http://www.cbpp.org...\",\n \"Universal Health Care Taxes is how the economy works, We may not like taxes, But it is an obligation to pay our taxes and respond accordingly. If there was a income-based health care tax, We would be able to use universal health care, Which was the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I can argue through this logic that if we can enact a health care tax so people without coverage, Can afford coverage without emptying their pockets. Every American deserves not to have health care bills that are astronomically high.\",\n \"Universal healthcare Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?\",\n \"Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! Facts are that MOST Americans agree that EVERYONE NEEDS Healthcare, Life insurance, Dental insurance, Vision Insurance, Disability Insurance, Sick Pay, Vacation Pay, Holiday Pay, you lose\",\n \"Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. \\\"they are not \\\"nuts\\\" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change.\\\" But you could say the same of those who would call for universal food, clothing and shelter-- the likes of whom me and most of America would consider a little \\\"nuts.\\\" So I see (and many others) the UHC crowd as no different. They don't deserve preferencial treatment. \\\"But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally.\\\" You reply: \\\"This is true....because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone.\\\" So you think we should implement universal health care simply because we can afford to. I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. And again, that is called communism. Just because we(or the unfortunate minority you will have paying for this)can afford something is not cause enough to implement it. \\\"Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation.\\\" Why not? If their in favor of doing it for health care, then why not for the more important needs in life? You still fail to address this inconsistency. \\\"Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France).\\\" But it we know they are capable of it, and it could be easily argued they they should go all the way. After all it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important. They, like UHC proponents in our country are simply inconsistent. And, as I have said, if they were consistent, they would be communists. \\\"One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars.\\\" When is the last time you saw the price of house? Clothing, rent and rood are by far more costly than private health insurance currently available. Policies for young people are particularly affordable (from as little as $80-$150 per month depending on coverage). Most of the 18-to-25-year-old whiners who are pushing for Obama and his assortment of freebies are simply blowing off getting health insurance and opting for car payments and cell phone bills instead. You for instance-- I'll bet you had no health insurance at the time of your accident but were able to use your Samsung text your friends and family to let them know you were okay. \\\"The middle class often cannot afford health insurance while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing.\\\" Yet I don't know many middle class without nicer cars than they really need, cell phones for most every family member and DSL service for their multitude of home computers. Let's not forget video game equipment and flat-screen TVs. The people in this country who TRULY cannot afford health insurance are a very small minority of those who do not have it. And these people (just as those with no food, shelter, and clothing) should have some TEMPORARY relief available if their situation truly warrants it. There will always be poor people (by choice or circumstance), but that is no excuse for socialism. \\\"my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none.\\\" I thought you would need to get creative to reconcile the inconsistency we have been discussing up to this point, but denying the inconsistency exists at all is a bit of a stretch. After rounds of discussing the inconsistency we have both already acknowledged, you are now claiming there is no inconsistency whatsoever because \\\"no link can be drawn\\\" between one human need and another. I'm going to give you a hall pass on this one and move on with our debate. \\\"While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care.\\\" There's that inconsistency again. But again, no real defense for it has been put forth. But at least you're acknowledging we still have a debate topic at all.\",\n \"Ban Obamacare Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Three basic, unalienable human rights, guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America. Not coincidentally, the inaccessibility to healthcare infringes upon all three of these rights. Without health, one cannot have life, achieve liberty, or pursue happiness to its fullest extent. Thus, healthcare should be treated as a public utility, available to all at affordable rates. The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has begun to do just that, rendering it not only Constitutional, but also proving it upholds basic human rights. Let's look at the numbers: 16.4 million people have gained coverage under Obamacare, a 35% chunk out of the uninsured. This means that 16.4 MILLION people are now able to receive affordable healthcare. Contrary to the fears of the GOP, Obamacare has actually provided consumers with MORE choices, as 25 percent more issuers have joined the Marketplace since its introduction, providing citizens with more choices. Americans are saving money on prescription drugs, as $15 billion has been saved since 2010, about $1,598 per beneficiary. Taxpayers are benefiting, as healthcare spending grew at its slowest rate in 50 years. But let's not stop there. The countries that top both lists of PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and GDP (Gross Domestic Product) have some form of socialized healthcare, and are in much better financial standing. This includes countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Along with their free education, those countries are miles ahead of the US. This is no coincidence. If you don't like Obamcare, you can opt for a more expensive, more inclusive plan. One is not limited. Obamacare simply sets a standard for a quality of living, ensuring all should have access to healthcare, that would be otherwise unaffordable. Not only is Obamacare Constitutional- it works. It works so well, and has worked so well in other countries, it's time we take it a step further, We are long overdue for some form of socialized healthcare.\",\n \"this should be the outline for reforming social security if nothing is done, everyone will automatically get a pay cut, that's the law. so you'd rather grandma get her benefits reduced, instead of given trump and other billionaires a pay cut first? you see no other policy that we could do, other than to cut grandma's paycheck?\",\n \"World Wide Unemployment Benefits. My argument: #1 \\\"World-Wide\\\": There is already worldwide unemployment benefits, and they're good enough. So far, I have not been able to find countries with absolutely *no* unemployment benefits in case someone becomes unemployed. According to http://aboutunemployment.org..., there is unemployment insurance in all 50 states if people are not fired 'for cause'. Ranging from 12-30 weeks long, these benefits are already in place for workers who are laid off due to automation and other causes not related to their work conduct to help them when they are looking for another job. Some places (Finland) even give UBI, or Universal Basic Income, which is basically free money to unemployed people. So as the countries of the world move towards Finland's example, giving out free money to help people pursue their interests, find a new job, and move forward in life, what more is there to be asked for? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to your arguments: #2 \\\"As we move forward and robots become Charles Darwin's parasitic wasps. The majority will become the minority the unlike s of today's, majority that suffer because of a minority.\\\" I will take this piece by piece. \\\"Robots become Charles Darwin's Parasitic Wasps\\\" I assume means this Darwin quote: \\\"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.\\\" I similarly assume that the wasps are the robots and they are supposed to feed on... *us*? Let us first revisit why we have this system set up the way it is. We all need money because it facilitates the exchange of goods, allowing us to get food, get water, get shelter... all of our basic needs, and more. Robots are starting to take over the more menial parts of this labor: For example consider Adam Smith's pin factory. He states that \\\"One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper...\\\" would *you* want to be stuck whitening pins eight hours a day for the rest of your life? I hope not! Robotics can take the menial labor and do it much better than humans, leaving humans time to do other, more skilled labors. #3 \\\"Wall E the Walt Disney movie...\\\" Yes, please everyone, climate change is real. What I disagree with is that \\\"the wrong people are in charge\\\". Try setting up and playing World Climate with others and you will find how hard it is to fix our problems. Maybe even try playing it with your \\\"Tom T. Hall\\\". You will find that solving problems requires more than the right people in charge. Being a good singer with good ideals isn't going to solve climate change either. \\\"in charge\\\" is difficult as well. The world has 195 countries (recognized by US State Department). The world has 7 billion people. Good luck getting all those people to agree to have massive changes, sea changes in their lives so that we can stop climate change. You'll have to get everyone to close coal and natural gas plants, jump start electric car building, build renewable plants, etc. Without a dictatorship this is impossible to accomplish, and no one likes dictatorships anyways. #4 \\\"Have the 1% ears\\\" DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT PART OF THE 1% NOR DO I CLAIM TO BE Yes, the 1% have ears, they are humans like the rest of us, and they are kind as well. The only thing they share are their material wealth. There are Democrats and Republicans and Independents in this group. There are climate advocates and deniers in this group. There are presidents and oil executives and lawyers in this group. There are *singers and political advocates* in the group, and maybe one of your idols are part of the 1%. There are many with compassion and brilliance, and a few with just... brilliance? Any problem is hard to solve, and changing a few heads at the top won't solve them. The United States, right now, has a reality show star at its helm. Did it help? It once had a peanut farmer, an actor, and of course the lawyers and senators at its helm. Did they do their job well enough? Some did, some didn't. It's very 50/50. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion I believe A) we already have robust unemployment standards B) adding new political neophytes at the top of politics won't make things get better C) robots will make our lives better My arguments are listed above. Thank you.\",\n \"Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. So it seems I've taken the resolution a little off-topic from where the instigator intended for it to go. Very well, I do not think it will hurt my case or my position in this debate -- As Con, I must prove why advocates of universal health care should NOT also be advocating for universal food, shelter or clothing. Got it. Well consider R1 to be a detailed explanation of why advocates of UHC are calling for it in the first place, and they are not \\\"nuts\\\" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change. In terms of this debate, Pro has asked that I explain the so-called inconsistency of singling out health care by wanting to make health care universal, whereas other basic human needs like food and clothing are above health care in terms of the hierarchy of necessity, yet people aren't advocating for socialized shelter. First, as I've pointed out, universal food, shelter and clothing are already provided to those in need by the government. Pro notes, \\\"But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally.\\\" This is true; one must qualify and meet the living standards deemed appropriate to receive \\\"free\\\" food and shelter. However this is because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone but those who are deemed in dire need. #1 - Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation. Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France). #2 - One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars, putting families into debt and/or causing them to seek no treatment at all (which may cost them their health/lives). Prescription drugs, operations or other medical procedures, doctor visits, etc. are all a lot more expensive than these basic needs, especially because there are often no alternatives. ... For instance, if I broke a bone and needed surgery, there is no getting around that. But if I'm hungry and can't afford a gourmet meal or even a fast food meal, there's always the option of buying a bag of Ramen noodles for 25 cents, or in a moment of desparation, even taking left-over food out of the trash (such as some homeless people often resort to). However while one can build a make-shift place to live (even from a cardboard box) and survive, one cannot perform heart surgery on themselves, for instance, thus making health care a greater need. The same example applies to buying a t-shirt at a craft store for $2 as opposed to an Armani shirt for $200. Third, keep in mind that not only the impoverished can benefit from universal health care. The middle class often cannot afford health insurnace while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing. Thus my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none. While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care. So again, offering universal food, clothing and shelter would turn us into a communist nation. We already have programs that offer assistance in these areas to those in dire need. However the establishment of universal health care would NOT turn us into a communist nation. Instead, it would eliminate the high cost charged by insurance companies, and we'd pay less money for (at least) equal or better health care. Everyone would receive this benefit - not just the rich, and not just the poor. Keep in mind that making health care universal could/would probably increase the salary one earns, because offering health insurance would no longer be a perk of a job offer. They'd have to find other incentives to reward their employees with. Hmm. All-in-all, I have pointed out why universal health care is a good idea, while offering universal food, clothing and shelter is not. Universal health care would SAVE people money, whereas the taxation from all of those other goods would cost people money. It also just doesn't make sense in general, whereas universal health care does make sense. So basically, even if you don't agree with universal health care, that's fine... but to say that supporters of UHC should also support other universal programs is presumptious and frankly kind of absurd.\",\n \"All Americans should be entitled to health care To begin: -In this debate health care shall be defined as a universal government run health care system -I would like to refrain from arguing specifics of health care provisions but I will fully accept arguments on the effectiveness of government health care Resolution: All Americans should be entitled to health care So with this in mind I would like to open my argument: In the status quo, millions of Americans have had and will continue to have serious medical illnesses and will be required to pay vast amounts of medical bills. In the interests of this debate, I will list the reasons to prefer the resolution to the status quo: 1. Many Americans are unable to pay for their health expenses even though not at fault, this creates a situation in which a person's right to live is judged by their income. Governing a person's right to live by income is bad because it advocates that a a person who is very morally just and has contributed greatly to society is worth less than another person who has cheated his way to wealth. My argument is simple, government run health care is better because your state of health is not determined by your financial worth. 2. The privatization of health care is bad because the most successful health care company is the one that makes the most money which means that a person's health isn't held as importantly. 3. Children born to families in lower economic conditions will also suffer from decreased health even though the child has done nothing to deserve that status. 4. Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance(1)(2). (1)http://www.pnhp.org... 5. In order to protect the interests of all Americans, universal health care is the best option to counter epidemics like bird flu. 6. The Preamble of the US Constitution clearly states \\\"to promote the general welfare\\\" of the people.This justification alone is enough to show all Americans should have the right to health care because it \\\"promotes the general welfare.\\\" These are all reasons why governmental health care solves best for moral and economic factors. In conclusion, universal health care is a moral imperative to insure that freedom and equality is preserved in the US.\",\n \"A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea OH YES! NO STRESS! PROWESS! NO CONTEST! THE BEST!\",\n \"The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. \\\"I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead.\\\" Same to you - I can still apply the same argument to that. What if your \\\"limit\\\" of taxes has been reached, and the government decides it needs some minor funding for a highway project? Then the taxes will have been raised beyond the \\\"necessary limit\\\". I could go on with many different examples, so you see my point; you can't say this is a consequence of just health care. \\\"Typo, smart one...\\\" I realized that obviously... \\\"Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself.\\\" OK, so Johnny wants a better health plan than Bobby, so he gets it. Bobby wants it too, but he can't have it, because he's broke. How do you think Bobby feels? According to this whole \\\"equal rights\\\" thing we've been talking about, Bobby deserves the same health care as Johnny. So why shouldn't he get it? Especially if he was born into a position where he can't change his situation easily. \\\"Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care.\\\" I'm not saying the government should make decisions for us, you're over exaggerating it. I'm saying that we should all use one health plan, that covers common problems. Any additional problems can be given by his job, like he said. But basic needs should be given to all people. In fact, this way, since not as many things will be covered by a universal health plan (for example, uncommon things like tornadoes will not be included, but common things like surgery will be), it won't cost as much. Add in the fact that only 10% of the people will get the benefit and it will not monetarily affect the rest, and it's not that bad of a tax raise. \\\"Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours.\\\" Well I do have a C or D in English...damnit! XD Oh well, back to the debate. Fine, I'll list the Pros and Cons of each plan. Pros of Universal: + everyone gets it Cons: - tax increase Pros of Non-universal: + no tax increase His plan doesn't have more Pros, but it has less Cons. However, let's analyze it further for a minute. His main benefit is that Bobby will get his free health care, while Johnny's is supplied by his job and covers his specific needs. Now, in a universal plan, everyone gets basic needs, and nobody would get specific benefits. However, Johnny's job can give him the extra benefits he needs. So instead of the job having the burden of providing ALL health care benefits, it only needs to provide the ones specific to that job. Also, everyone starts with an equal amount of health care (equal rights). So in a universal plan, less pressure is put on specific jobs, and everyone starts with equal protection. The only \\\"problem\\\" is a tax increase. However, it can be worked into the budget in place of something else to even it out. \\\"Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy.\\\" Exactly. That's why one of the purposes of government is to stabilize the economy. But a stable economy cannot be compared to free speech for example; free speech is a fundamental right that cannot be limited. Economic stability, however, is just necessary to establishing good living conditions. It makes life good. It's not like the government doing a bad job with the economy would be taking away a right; it'd just be a bad government. \\\"That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that?\\\" Like I suggested earlier this argument, the job can provide any extra benefits Jack needs. He already gets common protections, though. So they are not getting less. And Bobby is getting more. That's the point of it. And for the record, your example sucks; why would you get free spa treatment with your health insurance? lol \\\"Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet\\\" No, he would get the basic health care from the government, and then his job would give him the friggin' sweet part. So what he doesn't pay out normally (the unsweet part) would go back in taxes. No gain, no loss. Sweet enough? \\\"So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me.\\\" Did you notice that people who pay more for their houses, have bigger houses? Maybe that's why they pay so much. Rich people pay more, because they get more. Vote Pro because: 1. I have shown why universal health care does not mean paying more and getting less. 2. Universal health care keeps current health care bonuses while providing more care to those who need it.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.\",\n \"That UBI should be implemented in the western world As someone who lives in Australia and has personal experience with the Aboriginal debate, you are again misinformed. I will now lay out my rebuttal Rebuttal Popularity Difference between income card and UBI Abolish not refine Addressing your point on popularity. This debate is about whether they should do so, not how the government would get it through Parliament. Besides, your reason for the popularity was a $20,000 proposal. However, I am proposing a $10,000 UBI, which as logic entails is the correct amount of the budget. You pointed out that the income card doesn't work. This is true, but that is not what we are suggesting, isn't a card to control what you spend your welfare on, which is what an income card is, we are suggesting we give them money free for them to spend. You said that we should refine the welfare instead of replacing it with completely different system, however, the welfare program has been proven not to work as any amount above it's small benefit window and you lose the welfare leaving you with less. In conclusion, UBI is a better system, as opposed to normal welfare. This debate is not about getting it through Parliament, or what completely different systems do. This debate is about, what has already been proven as the better system, UBI.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income His plan increases the “income effect” compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent’s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent’s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con’s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. “[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers’ desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the “welfare to work” reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the “weaker” nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).”[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con’s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con’s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a “crowd out” effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn’t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent’s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its “cut throat” capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any “positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only “15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.”[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, “most are in poverty.”[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent’s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent’s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found “that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.”[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...\",\n \"The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens. Okay, this should be easy... just kidding... maybe...anyhow: \\\"' . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . ' Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P\\\" Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level. \\\"' . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . ' What unnecessary restrictions?\\\" Taxes, read above, genius... \\\"Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live. Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free?\\\" Because Johnny's health insurance is probably provided for free by his business. Even if it's not, he can afford to choose his health insurance. Since Bobby works at fast food restaurants, he is kinda lacking health care, which is necessary to have if one wants to live and practice one's rights (that's why any health care should be provided). Anyways, Johnny pays the same difference if he gets universal health care, as the extra taxes he pays go to giving Bobby health care. Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care. My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs. Bobby, who can't afford any health insurance gets to buy basic health insurance. In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is \\\"one size fits all\\\" and it is given to people who don't need it. Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan. \\\"Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable.\\\" I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff. \\\"Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to: 1) Protect citizen rights 2) Maintain order and safety 3) Maintain economic stability 4) Provide necessary public services\\\" You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights. \\\"With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care. Of course, you may ask, \\\"What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?\\\" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress. I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people.\\\" As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive. Also, the example of Jack is important. Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff. Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments! While this may not seem like a huge deal, the point is, you lose stuff with universal health care that you don't if you simply pay for what people need.\",\n \"Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens As the topic is a resolution, and I am taking the affirmative, I fully agree that I should take the Burden of Proof. That being said, let us begin. Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens. We shall begin with the most fundamental role of government. The protection of mankind's universal rights. This is the most basic, moral, and \\\"just\\\" function of government. This is the basic principle upon which Thomas Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence. The most basic role of government is to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. Like Thomas Jefferson, I will build my argument upon this principle. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights details 30 rights which ought to be ensured to all people. Two of these rights are the right to life and the right to social security. Youth For Human Rights defines these two rights as: Life: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety. Social Security: We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old. Based on these two definitions, I feel it is reasonable to assume that every person has a right to their life and for the necessities for life. If the base function of a just government is to protect the universal rights of its citizens, and each person has a right to life and the things necessary to sustain life, then it is only reasonable to say that a just government ought to ensure food security to its citizens. I find it to be a truly moral and just resolution. I hope my few words have rung true. With hope of a dignified response, I solicit the votes of the judges. Thank you.\",\n \"Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI I'll cover framework, case, and off case respectively.Going over framework.It's fair to say that my opponent dropped his value criterion of generic consistiency and my value criterion of consquentialism. Therefore all impacts should be decided through a consquentialist framework. The value of Kantian Social Contract is better supported on the negation, as we avoid the disadvantages of the aff plan. The social contract as explained by Kant is the agreement between individuals and the goverment for the individual to give up some rights to ensure the goverment protects the remaining. However, criminals violate others rights through murder, plunder, theft or such. Therefore, they don't have the same rights as the average citizen as they have broken the social contract. For example, a criminal may suffer from disenfranchisment, incarceration, capital punishment or such as punishment.Going over case.Overall, my opponent fails to realize that via establishing a partial basic income brings all the same benefits as UBI, and avoids the disadvantages of crime and terror and welfare magnets. The partial basic income is still supplied to the common American, solving everything that my opponent says is unique to UBI. We both solve for poverty, economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. Overall, all the affirmative advantages are nonunique, since neg also solves.Going over my opponent's attack on my C1 on crime and terror. First, I'll appeal myself to the good will of the spectators and my opponent. Where did I ever breathe a word, or even the edge of a word that UBI would be a $10,000 monthly payment. I'm sorry to say, but my opponent fails to realize the proper definitions of words. According to Merriam-Webster, annually is defined as occurring or happening every year or once a year. Cambridge Dictionary agrees: once per year. Holidays are celebrated ANNUALLY, birthdays are occur ANNUALLY, and anniversaries happen ANNUALLY. Completely ignore everything my opponent says on this faulty basis. What must be said, however, is that UBI proponents disagree what quantitatively is a basic income. Some say $10,000, others say $12,000, while others advocate for higher. I'll take the $12,000 number, however it can very well be said that my opponent is making a rod for his own back. If we pick the higher of the two, Tango Blast would receive $228,000,000 annually, only worsening the problem. I'll further elaborate the impacts. According the FBI's report on the National Gang Threat Assessment, there are approximately 1.4 million active gang members. Given that, this would give organized crime groups $16,800,000,000 annually. This would only further expand their massive criminal enterprises and such, exacerbating their power in the global sphere.Now my opponent asks how are criminals going to receive these funds? Very important question indeed? Nonetheless, they would receive it the same way everyone else would, whatever that may be. Many criminals have bank accounts, and pay their taxes and such, and under UBI, the government would treat them like any other citizen.My opponent drops my point on domestic terror and FBI watch lists, and by extension admitting that under the affirmative domestic terrorism would by increased in both number and severity. Imagine the pointless, violent bloodshed in say Orlando, or Las Vegas, or Parkland or such, only exacerbated with military grade weaponry. Under the affirmative, the school walkouts would need a great deal more than just 17 minutes for the lives lost.On the point of wrongful convictions, most of these are done through plea bargains. Misdemeanor convictions are almost always the standard with them, meaning that the Now lets go over my C2 on immigration.First, this is merely basic logic. Currently in the status quo, many immigrants illegally come to our country to bear children, ensuring they are US citizens. Then as their children are US citizens, they too want citizenship status. UBI grants additional incentives, since they don't even need to work to survive. Setting a 10 year limit ensures that immigrants are able to become productive members of society, and don't come here just for welfare.Second, immigration does in fact have consquences. Mass illegal immigration would encourage Trump to engage in mass deportations to maintain his Republican base, and to be hard on immigration. Mass deportations of that sort haven't exactly the best history in this country. For example, during the mass deportation during the Great Depression, Hispanic homes were raided, regardless of who they were, and were forced onto south bound trains to Central America and Mexico. This permantly seperated families, and sent multitudes into a country that many never knew. Third, I made no economic concerns about UBI in regard to immigration. This point is mute. I expect immigrants to kickstart their lives by getting a job. It isn't the goverment' job to support someone just because they moved here, they need to prove their worth.The CP solves this disadvantage by preventing legal immigrants from getting a UBI till they have been here 10 years. For these reasons I strongly urge a negative ballot.Since I have characters remaining, here's a word of warning. Never ask for a doggie bag in Pyeonchang.\",\n \"That UBI should be implemented in the western world Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws in your argument I would like to point out the fact that 'broad and illogical' is not how you should describe it, as an opener to a debate it is meant to be broad, and illogical will be disproved later in the argument. Now onto the rebuttal. Rebuttal Not Enough money in the US Not enough money for the people The argument that there would be not enough money in the US governments pocket to pay for everyone is true, to an extent. The US federal budget adds up to $3.8 trillion, this makes up 21% of the US economy. The government should merely Raise tax on private industry. I choose private industry because the money from UBI is not taxed which means that it will end up in private areas of the economy anyway. Additionally, private industry is not taxed enough now. This mixed with the majority of the welfare budget would come to enough money that will circulate in the economy. The idea that $10,000 is not enough money, may seem correct from a rudimentary point of view. However, with further research you can find that trials done in Finland, show that even for poorest when you give them $10,000 it helps encourage them seek out further funds and decreased poverty rates substantially. The idea that the homeless just spend their money on drugs and alcohol is actually false, and what the real result is that the richest one percent spend the most money on drugs and alcohol. So in conclusion the arguments you have presented as rebuttal are either misinformed or false, and my point still stands.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income Thanks, Con. I’ll use this round to defend my case and crystallize.Trialsa) Con alleges that the countries that had UBI trials in are incomparable to an American-implemented UBI because they’re considerably poorer, more corrupt, and less stable than the United States is. However, Con doesn’t illustrate *why* this matters, and expects us to assume that, because a country is less developed, any UBI trial conducted is going to be invalid. This string of assumptions is really going to hurt Con, and I’m going to show why.The underlying principle of a UBI is that an increase an income is inherently beneficial, as money is the basic means that we use to provide for ourselves. This principle doesn’t change in a country with proportionally less poor people. Even if we buy Con’s assumption that “each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified”, there’s no reason to believe that a UBI *won’t* be effective. Given that the U.S. has 43 million people living under the poverty line [12], the U.S. *absolutely* has room for improvement, and indeed has room to see a benefit from a UBI. Con’s premise is essentially that a country needs to be poverty-free in order for a UBI to be ineffective. Because a UBI would exist for the very purpose of reducing poverty, this point is nonsensical.Con doesn’t show how corruption or instability is relevant to a UBI. How would the basic principle of more income increasing financial leverage be confounded by more corruption or instability? Furthermore, “instability” isn’t defined by Con. He wants us to outright buy his assumptions that such would “amplify” the results of a UBI trial, and that such amplification results in in conclusive evidence that a UBI would have no effect whatsoever in the United States. We have no reason to buy either of these assumptions, so this point is negated. b) Con contends that my trials are limited, and are thus incomparable to the U.S. on a national level. But again, he gives us very little reason to dismiss my evidence; trials for cash transfers haven’t yet been done on that immense of a level, and in the absence of such, we should buy my pieces of evidence prima facie. Con gives us no instances of a UBI working, beyond a “model” in the UK (which I demonstrated to be flawed in R3), whereas I provide 4 instances of *actual* conducted trials, all of which pointed to UBI benefits. Additionally, Con admits that his model is a micro-implementation of an actual scenario, so *even* if his example is valid, we should dismiss it by Con’s own admission.Current Welfare Programsa) Yes, we have a progressive tax system in the sense that the poor pay marginally fewer taxes from their ordinary income. They are, however, taxed more when unrealized capital gains are added [13]. When one considers state and local taxes in addition to ones on the federal level, the illusion of the progressive tax system vanishes. In fact, a study [14] from the Institute on Taxation and economic policy found that “Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.” [15] The poor simply do not have less incentives to move up the income ladder, contrary to Con’s claim. He also dropped the CBO report I cited, so extend that.b) My asset cap point is pretty much dodged. Con insists that asset caps exist because some people just don’t need welfare programs. But he concedes that “there is definitely an argument to be made” in raising that cap. That’s exactly the argument I’m making: the caps are dangerously low, which discourage self-reliance and saving. Con is supposed to be defending the welfare programs as they stand right now, yet he admits that they might not be ideal. This can’t be good for him; I don’t see how he can simultaneously defend the status quo and agree that the status quo may not be idea.c) Con asserts that the poverty rate isn’t taken into consideration for in-kind welfare programs. How is this relevant? They do, in fact, take into consideration things like income and total assets. Con doesn’t show why this matters.I've shown how (1) multiple examples prove that a UBI works, and that (2) it reduced poverty, which Con has essentially conceded. Thus, I affirm.Sources[12] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu...[13] https://www.alternet.org...[14] https://itep.org...[15] https://www.cnbc.com...\",\n \"All people should receive the same income Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, \\\"ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. \\\" By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum \\\"amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. \\\" [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. \\\"In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. \\\" [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. \\\"Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. \\\" [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. \\\"Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. \\\" [8] \\\"Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. \\\" [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. \\\"Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. \\\" Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...\",\n \"That UBI should be implemented in the western world You have still failed to identify my main point... a UBI system is not a feasible replacement for welfare. The truth is, ordinary middle class, working citizens in their prime working age range DO NOT require the payment from a UBI system. It baffles me how you have failed to understand why currently, there is no country who has even begun to seriously consider this. The only country so far to pass a referendum is Switzerland, in which it was rejected 3 to 1. You claim to be Australian, I am as well. However, in your last argument, you failed to tell me how I was misinformed on the Aboriginal debate. Over the last 5 years, I have worked closely with a school foundation providing not financial funds, but things such as toiletries and access to health and nutritional education to a small town community with a large percentile of Aboriginal residents. We have seen that these provisions seem to have led to a greater improvement in the overall health of the community and we have even begun to get in close contact with some of the elders. But, back to the UBI point, I will once again enlighten you on reality. The truth is, many citizens in civilisation are born disadvantaged. Some children have parents with a bad influence, others have faced abused as young children and in many cases, these people end up broken mentally the homeless people on streets living off welfare. It is not that they are lazy and refuse to work. They were never taught the work ethic and never experienced a feeling of belonging to our society. These are the members of society who require the help of welfare. You seem to be overly confident that you have found a feasible UBI solution. However, you fail to realise that if you, genuinely, had found a practical, feasible UBI solution, you would not be on debate.org arguing. The popularity of a notion is directly correlated to how practical and real it is for the rest of society.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal \\\"Workfare\\\" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of \\\"roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today\\\" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- \\\"The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds\\\" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries \\\"overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates\\\" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...\",\n \"Universal Basic Income Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...\",\n \"Universal Basic Income I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more \\\"buIIshit jobs\\\" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the \\\"negative incentives\\\" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These \\\"negative incentives\\\" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered \\\"below\\\" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...\",\n \"The US ought to provide an universal basic income. I accept. Where is that debate?\",\n \"The US ought to provide an universal basic income. I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.\",\n \"That UBI should be implemented in the western world Well to that, I will simply reply... Your first point is actually a very reasonable and valid solution, however, proposing such a tax reform and welfare slash would definitely NOT be popular with the public. This is evident in Switzerland wherein 2016, a UBI referendum was rejected. Trials are being run in many countries in Africa along with Finland, however, countries such as Australia and America have yet to seriously consider this. In Australia, a $20 000 UBI was proposed. The cost of this would be twice the current cost of the current welfare system. Additionally, regarding your point on homeless people and their spending, in Australia, there is a huge cultural debate on Aboriginal welfare. In fact, in many towns, the government has begun to introduce an income card/ food voucher system. The reality is, disadvantaged members of society in both America and Australia receive generously from the welfare system. These provisions are enough to provide basic housing, food and water. However, despite this, these people still sleep on streets and beg for money for food. Alcohol and drugs are a huge reason behind this. There is debate trying to push a nation-wide income card system for welfare receivers, however, this is argued to be a breach of human rights with no supporting evidence. The main problem is, there is lack of public funding to support an investigation which would be both lengthy and costly. In fact, if the government would manage (somehow) to pass a tax reform on private industries, the money would be much better off refining the current welfare system instead of abolishing it completely and replacing it with an impractical UBI system. The main aim of welfare is to aid disadvantaged members of society, not to make government money distribution equal.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \\\"kritiks\\\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!\",\n \"Universal Basic Income There are multiple objectives a welfare program should achieve. Economist Ed Dolan offers the following four criteria in which to evaluate welfare programs:1 1) A good welfare program leaves few, if any, people below the poverty line; 2) Whether or not the program is targeted for those who need it most; 3) A good welfare program would keep work incentives intact, at least as much as possible; 4) A good welfare program would reduce administrative costs and waste. The UBI accomplishes all of these goals except for one, but I will explain this in a moment. M specific UBI involves a minimum income of $10,000—unconditional, you earn it whether or not you are working—and all welfare programs (even EITC!) except social security (would be phased out, I will elaborate if my opponent brings up costs), medicare, and medicaid. This would eliminate all poverty for families of two or more, and eliminate poverty for the vast majority of single person households. The reason I would not abolish medicare and medicaid is because the UBI would likely not be high enough to cover both their welfare and medical needs. We would also eliminate most middle class and upper class loopholes and tax credits in order to increase the UBI funding pool. The UBI benefit will outweigh the loss in credits for most middle class families. 1. A UBI would leave few, if any, people below the poverty line A properly crafted UBI would leave virtually everyone above the poverty line. My proposed UBI would keep anyone who earns just a few thousands dollars a year—something that can easily be done doing odd jobs occasionally—above the poverty line, and people who earn $0 would be only a little shy of it. All households with more than one person would be lifted above the poverty line. A UBI would fulfill this goal. 2. A UBI would not be targeted—and that’s a good thing! This is the only criteria a UBI does not meet, but this is actually a good thing. Why? Because means-tested programs focus on targeting. It focuses on giving aid to only those who need it. But the consequence of this is a decline in work incentives because means tested programs phase out over time and impose high marginal tax rates on the next dollar earned, thus discouraging work effort. Not only that, but an untargeted welfare program increases administrative efficiency because you do not need workers to make sure each family receiving benefits needs it—the untargeted aspect of the UBI means it can be administered through the tax system and be calculated by a computer algorithm. 3. A UBI would preserve work incentives overall, and do so better than any means tested system Implementing a UBI to a society where welfare did not exist at all would reduce work incentives. But a society without assistance for the needy is not desirable. Free markets have made us so wealthy that it is not only feasible to eliminate poverty, it is desirable because no one should starve in a wealthy society like as ours. The UBI would significantly increase work incentives compared to a means-tested welfare system because there is no phase-out of benefits. Phase-outs work the same as high marginal tax rates. In other words, for every extra dollar a poor person earns, they gain less than a dollar of disposable income. Let me give an example. Say we have a phase out of 0.75 cents per dollar earned. This means if I make one extra dollar from work, I lose 0.75 cents in benefits, and only get 25 cents. This means my marginal tax rate is 75%, which clearly disincentivizes work. Is the extra 25 cents worth it? Is it worth working for an extra dollar to only receive 25 cents? For some people, the answer is yes. But for others, the extra work may be worth one dollar, but the extra work is not worth 25 cents. Thus, a means tested system is destined to significantly reduce work incentives. This is not the case under a UBI. People will obtain the $10,000 benefit no matter what—if they earn a million dollars or $2,000 dollars, they will still get $10,000 in benefits each year. There is no phase out. No tax levied on every extra dollar earned. To further analyze this, let's look at economic theory. There are two effects of a UBI (and welfare in general) on work incentives: the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect generally reduces work. As disposable income rises, people tend to use more of that money to go on vacation and work less. The substitution effect generally increases work effort. As disposable income rises, the opportunity cost of not working grows larger. This increases work effort. Both of these effects work simultaneously. How would it work under a UBI? Look at the following graphic.2 Now assume we are at arrow one before the red and green lines cross (green = UBI, red = means tested, blue = no welfare). For this group of people, the income effect and the substitution effect simultaneously increase work incentives because the opportunity cost of not working grows with an added UBI and the income effect increases work effort. The reason the income effect actually increases work effort here is because having more disposable income means more leisure time in the future, but as you are poor in this part of the graph you cannot afford to take time off. So both of these effects under a UBI serve to increase work effort more than they do under a means tested program. Now look at arrow 2: a person’s income a little above the crossover point. The substitution effect is stronger under a UBI than under a means tested regime because there is no longer a 0.75 cent reduction in benefits for each dollar earned (in fact, the marginal tax rates under the current welfare system often exceed 100%, so by using 75% I am being generous).3 Now the income effect is greater under a UBI at this point of the graph than under a means-tested regime, but the substitution effect is likely much larger than the income effect at this point because it will only be as large as the difference between the UBI and the means tested regime—the income effect between no welfare and a UBI is fairly large here, but that is because earned income is a lot higher under UBI than under nothing. At this point in the graph, the difference in disposable income between a UBI and means tested is not very large, so the positive work incentives will outweigh the negative ones here. Now look at arrow 3. This represents people who wish to work less and qualify for government assistance instead of losing benefits and hopping onto the blue line (which is how it works in the U.S. right now because the phase out eventually ends up being zero). The UBI would remedy this because no phase out means no working less in order to qualify for a benefit—you always get the benefit—so, at this part of the graph, the UBI would enhance work incentives. Now jump to arrow 4. At this point, a means tested system ceases to offer benefits because they have been phased out—the individual at arrow 4 is middle to upper class. At this point, a UBI only has an income effect compared to a means tested system. This means, for the upper and middle class, a UBI would reduce work effort. However, the effects are going to be small because the higher the income, the smaller percentage of that income will come to a UBI. So while it will disincentivize work for these people, the effect will be small, and virtually zero for the rich. Thus, economic theory dictates that a UBI would increase work incentives compared to a means tested system. As Ed Dolan argues, a UBI “would substantially increase work incentives for low-income households while having small disincentive effects, if any, for middle- and upper-income households.”2 For this reason, Dolan believes work effort will be higher on aggregate under a UBI than under a means-tested system. 4. A UBI would reduce administrative waste This is the clearest and least disputable benefit of the UBI. A UBI would require no verification of personal characteristics. A means tested system would: you have to determine whether or not a person actually needs assistance. A UBI would just be integrated into the tax code and calculated by a computer. A person who made $0 would receive the money no questions asked. For people who earn $1 - infinity, you would receive the $10,000 minus taxes due. So a person earning $1 owes essentially no taxes, so he would get $10,001. But a person earning $100,000 will earn $110,000 minus taxes due. The only welfare program that is simple enough to virtually eliminate administrative costs is the UBI. Failures of the current welfare system A UBI is so important because the current system does not work. The poverty rate has remained virtually the same since the War on Poverty was declared, despite trillions in welfare spending.4 As noted in round 1, we have 126 different welfare programs. Each of these programs simply add to the red tape, and with no decrease in poverty since the late 1960s, these programs seem to add little to no benefit. My opponent will likely be providing a counterplan, as the failure of the current welfare state is fairly obvious. The failures of the current welfare system require that we get something done, and an unconditional UBI best protects work incentives, reduces administrative waste, and reduces the number of people below the poverty line 1. http://www.economonitor.com... 2. http://www.economonitor.com... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://object.cato.org...\",\n \"Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a \\\"one size fits all\\\" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !\",\n \"Universal Basic Income IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \\\"kritiks\\\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!\",\n \"Universal Basic Income is a good thing So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals\\\"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? \\\"Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these \\\"welfare bums\\\" actually reenter the job market. ---\\\"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. \\\"Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. \\\"The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. \\\" [4]----\\\"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology\\\"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income is a good thing I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach \\\"climax\\\" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a \\\"bad thing\\\" for the moment.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income I. Intro Thank you to Varrack for what promises to be a stimulating discussion, and 1harder for the tournament. II. Cost As of 2012, means-tested welfare in the United States was comprised of 79 programs which cost $927 billion. [1] We can assume it has increased since then, so as a generous figure, we can suppose it currently costs roughly $1.1 trillion. Under Varrack\\\"s plan, each adult in the United States would receive $10,000. Kids Count Data Center estimates that as of 2016, there were approximately 249.5 million adults in the United States. [2] Providing each of these adults with a UBI would cost approximately $2.5 trillion annually, and this excludes all bureaucratic costs. It\\\"s clear to see that the cost is well over double the cost of the current welfare system. Not only does Varrack have to prove that his plan is superior to the current welfare system, he also must prove that it is worth the astronomical increase in the cost of welfare. There is also the negligible harm that it provides an extra $10,000 to individuals who do not need it. Images of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates receiving this guaranteed income is ridiculous, but the same principle can be applied to individuals making a fraction of what the super-rich make. A family with a combined income of $500,000 may find that an extra $20,000 is nice to have, but hardly necessary. I\\\"m the first to admit that this isn\\\"t a significant harm to the plan, but a harm nevertheless. III. Capitalism is not compatible with UBI Proponents of UBI often argue that UBI is the first step on the path toward de-commodifying labor and allowing citizens the freedom from work that a utopian society promises. However, in order to do this, citizens must be paid a sum high enough to allow them freedom from work. If not, they will be forced to continue working to reach a living wage. According to Professor Daniel Zamora of Cambride, employers know this and will be able to drive down wages, effectively turning this plan into a subsidy for businesses. [3] According to David Graeber, Professor at the London School of Economics, implementation of the UBI without first transitioning away from capitalism would only exacerbate many of the issues capitalism presents, and increase in the number of \\\"buIIshit jobs.\\\" [3] Rather than working in the intended manner, UBI would cause businesses to pay less, and end up causing Americans to work less fulfilling jobs just to maintain the same level of comfort that they had before the UBI was implemented. IV. UBI is ineffective Let\\\"s say we implement UBI in the United States. Though Varrack has provided examples of UBI being implemented in other nations, none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States. Instead, we should look to the micro-implementation case study done by the think tank \\\"Compass\\\" in the UK. By implementing a smaller version of Varrack\\\"s plan, the impact was devastating. Child poverty actually increased by 10%, poverty among pensioners by 4%, and among working class families by 3%. For Varrack\\\"s more comprehensive plan, the analysis points to slight reductions of poverty (7% for children, 1.9% for working age people, and 0.8% for pensioners.) [3] In order to do this, as stated earlier, the United States would have to pay approximately $2.5 trillion, which is over 12.5% of US GDP. [4] 2012 estimates on the price of eradicating poverty put the cost at around 1% of GDP. [5] If we can do so much more for so much less, why don\\\"t we? V. The American System and The American Dream Though individuals on both sides of the aisle attack the current state of welfare (albeit for entirely different reasons) by pointing to poverty rates, what isn\\\"t often taken into account is that this statistic ignores reception of in-kind welfare. It doesn\\\"t consider food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and the like, when these really put people in a much better situation than what the \\\"poverty rate\\\" implies. Impoverished Americans are, on average, far better off than their European counterparts. [6] Furthermore, the negative incentives \\\"discouraging impoverished Americans from working\\\" simply does not exist. Americans that earn less actually have a greater incentive to work than those in higher tax brackets. Their \\\"marginal tax rates\\\" or losses of benefits due to increased income, are actually significantly lower than the rest of the workforce. An individual below half the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of approximately 14%. A person from 50-100% of the poverty line has a marginal tax rate of about 24%. Individuals with higher incomes faced a marginal tax rate of about 34%. [6] This phenomenon that Varrack and many pundits tout is actually nonexistent. VI. Conclusion To summarize, our current system works. Critics use inaccurate statistics to discredit a system that is doing wonders. In contrast, the idea of UBI has never been tried in a developed country with a largely market economy, and without first dismantling capitalism, UBI would serve only to subsidize corporations to lower wages. Varrack must prove that 1. UBI is worth the massive increase in welfare costs 2. UBI could be implemented successfully within a capitalist economy and 3. That the limited testing in developing nations would be able to translate into the developed world. VII. Sources [1] http://budget.house.gov... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] https://www.jacobinmag.com... [4] https://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://prospect.org... [6] https://www.forbes.com...\",\n \"Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar\",\n \"That UBI should be implemented in the western world Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).\",\n \"That UBI should be implemented in the western world UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.\",\n \"Universal Basic Income This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.\"\n]","isConversational":false},"cluster":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":0,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":48,"offset":0,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc4MDY1NTUwNCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL0hpZXVtYW4vVG91Y2hlMjAyMCIsImV4cCI6MTc4MDY1OTEwNCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9odWdnaW5nZmFjZS5jbyJ9.DTVXlQeqkZXOplJs2RYvb_0Zj8qn38hXiQ3TSiNc-4ce9EYLD0U6jSQYei-c_dGQQ3YeLXjY1DTzNzr5WVNGDw","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":48,"numBytesParquet":4931609}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":0,"total":0},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
query stringlengths 16 83 | positive listlengths 5 31 | negative listlengths 83 96 | cluster int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Should teachers get tenure? | [
"Teacher Tenure\nHere are some facts against Teacher Tenure: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. [8] Tenure makes it difficult to remove ... | [
"BIRT The Student Body & Faculty Members Be Able To Appoint Their Principal and Vice Principal Thanks, shootmisslayup, for providing such an interesting topic. And thanks, also for your civil and high-esteem debate style; you've earned my respect. I apologize for the brevity of my last round, I was preparing for a ... | 1 |
Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | [
"Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs\nElectronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and ... | [
"Cigarettes are, overall, more detrimental to the overall well-being of Americans than alcohol. First of all, my opponent states that: \"While cigarettes themselves are less healthy than alcohol, they are also much less commonly used. \" Less commonly used? Probably. But just because alcohol is 'used' more than cig... | 0 |
Should insider trading be allowed? | [
"Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned\nIf free trade were so amazing, there would be no need for a silly agreement that takes ages to work out. The fact is that there are brilliant reasons for restricting trade, foremost among them that free trade is a total failure.Economic impacts on individuals... | [
"creation of stocks should be banned 3000 character limit. 1 - Rampant stock speculation was just one of many factors that lead to the Great depression... In fact almost two years passed between the stock market crash and widespread bank failures, which is really where the Great Depression began to ravage everythin... | 1 |
Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | [
"Corporal punishment should be banned from schools\nhttp://abcnews.go.com... This article shows the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in schools. In closing, corporal punishment should be banned because it is ineffective and lowers students' IQ's. Other forms of punishment should be explored and tested. Good l... | [
"My 99th Debate: Kids and Corporal Punishment In my family, we don't do punishment. I was never grounded, had my allowance stopped, or spanked. When issues of behavior came up, we sat around and discussed them. This is consistent with the morality of my family, and the type of community I grew up in, and I have eve... | 0 |
Should social security be privatized? | [
"Privatizing social security\nPrivatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.",
"Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized\nREBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Is... | [
"Pensions should be privatised State involvement in pensions is deleterious to both pensioners and the state.",
"social security should b means tested against the rich the rich are the ones who are engaging in theft. they borrow against social security their whole lives to fund the government, instead of paying f... | 1 |
Is a college education worth it? | [
"Governemt Should Intervene to Lower College Costs\nHere, I will attempt to prove that college costs are rising faster than the public can afford, and there is no forseeable decline, which necessitates government intervention. Con will attempt to prove that college costs are acceptable on their current path. Becaus... | [
"We regret the emphasis on college education Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate so effectively. Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational... | 1 |
Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | [
"You Choose the Topic!\nI believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is... | [
"Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. I'm sorry, I'm going to waive this last round, I'm sorry Kasmic. Feel free to award Pro conduct, but vote who had more convincing arguments. It's always a pleasure to debate you Kasmic.",
"should children be allowed to vote Can't be any worse than letting felon... | 1 |
Should abortion be legal? | [
"Abortion should be legal\n== Intro ==In this debate, I'll defend abortion being legal for some period in the pregnancy. This precludes Con from making arguments relating to abortion being immoral after a certain point in the pregnancy. The BoP in this debate is shared, both because of a lack of a clear status quo ... | [
"Abortion should be illegal I have been painfully waiting for an intellectual discourse since I've entered this site. The last three debates that I had were all forfeited. I hope neither of us will do the same. I will be arguing the notion that abortion ought to be legal. Let us have a thorough and interesting exch... | 1 |
Should students have to wear school uniforms? | [
"Students Should Not Wear Uniforms At Memphis City And Shelby County Schools\nkids should be allowed to express themselves in school. If they are not allowed some amount of self expression now it will come out later, usually much more forcefully than had they been allowed some freedom as children. Not everyone pers... | [
"Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Private Schools should have the right to decide their own dress code, whether that involves a uniform or not.",
"School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required. School Uniforms shouldn't be required for many reasons. For one School Uniforms oppress the creativity a... | 1 |
Should any vaccines be required for children? | [
"Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines\nMedical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical nec... | [
"Vaccinations are necessary I am sincerely sorry for this waste of time. I wish my opponent had not accepted this debate if they could not finish it. I was looking forward to debating this topic and it was a complete waste of time. I do hope everything is alright and my opponent just forgot, but I am very disappoin... | 1 |
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | [
"Transwomen Should Be Eligible to Play Sports in the Women's League\nApparently, In round one, Autocorrect mistook my commas for periods and capitalized the first letter of every word following them. I'm sorry to anyone who found this glitch distracting. If it happens again, Please forgive me, As it is beyond my co... | [
"Olympic Dream Is Dead The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...",
"Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports. I extend my arguments, steroids should not be allowed within sports.",
"Random Drug Tests in Middle/... | 1 |
Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | [
"Birth Control\nI understand and respect your arguments. In response to your question regarding age, yes I do believe a girl should wait until the age of eighteen to be able to obtain birth control. I understand your point that you believe a girl who wants to obtain birth control is already sexually active, however... | [
"Contraception is a right. Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't t... | 1 |
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | [
"Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted.\nWhile none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/c... | [
"Nuclear Power is the only way to provide sufficient energy for the future and must be invested in. Howdy. Before I get started, I'd like to say that this is my first debate on this website, so please forgive me for any oddities or broken unofficial rules. I'd really appreciate any tips anyone can leave in the comm... | 1 |
Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | [
"Sexiality Isn't a Choice\nSexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian househo... | [
"Homosexuality is psychological and not biological. \"In the interests of clarity and ease, both for myself and the readers, perhaps when you make an affirmative claim you might wish to quote what you feel is the key portion from a website or study, rather than merely several links to various.\"Sue, should be no pr... | 1 |
Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | [
"Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no)\nI have certainly learned alot and am looking forward to having a good time with this debate. Now lets just cut to the chase without any furthur delay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------... | [
"Animal Testing Thank you. The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and... | 0 |
Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | [
"The FDA Does More Harm Than Good\nI will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example... | [
"Governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for public Hello, and thank you for continuing to read this debate I would like to refute my opponent's statements. Rebuttal 1:Larz is an un-biased judge that just assigned a topic he would like to see debated.Rebuttal 2:You br... | 1 |
Should recreational marijuana be legal? | [
"Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use\nHello, and thanks to Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this important issue. I will begin by stating my contention. Growing marijuana, possessing marijuana, and using marijuana for recreational use (medical marijuana should be legal) ... | [
"Marijuana should be legal for recreational use I'd like to apologize to my opponent, but I am unable to submit my arguments at this time.",
"Marijuana Legalization I think marijuana should be legalized. For the purposes of the debate, let's assume laws under legalization would make pot similar to alcohol (21 age... | 1 |
Should churches remain tax-exempt? | [
"Should Churches Pay Taxes\nYes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business t... | [
"Religious Schools Should Not Receive Government Funding Religious schools are not the issue, but the use of taxpayer dollars going to them. As long as a church or religious organization wishes to run a school and meet the regulatory requirements, I have no issue with it. I would not try to deprive anyone of the ri... | 1 |
Should gay marriage be legal? | [
"Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States\nResponses: >> \"I was agreeing with the law when I stated \"should\" referring to marriage should be between a man and a woman.\" And I'm saying that law is unconstitutional. Defend your position. >> \"I also gave references stating that in the bible homosexuality... | [
"homosexual marriages should be legalised!!! yes. in my opinion it should be legalised bcoz everyone have right to live there life according to them n the society don't have any right to interfere in that. it's there personal matter that whom they prefer. if they like the person of same sex n they think that they w... | 1 |
Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | [
"Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.\nHello, ladies, gentlemen, judges my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that we should not ban all meat, dairy and eggs. So my roadmap will include divulging 3 of my own points since the pro has introduces none. My first assertion ... | [
"Chocolate is good. First and foremost, my opponent says that my rebuttal is false. This is an unnecessary argument because I just shortened what my opponent said. She begins with \"Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it,\" in round 2. I then said in my rebuttal that she said that chocola... | 1 |
Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | [
"OCTOBER PF UN prioritize poverty reduction vs environmental concerns\nWriter and environmental activist Paul Brooks wrote \" In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops\" Because I believe that the commodification of the environment is... | [
"Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Well, a troll who is now banned accepted my other debate, so I am doing this again. Thank you to Medv4380 for accepting this debate. However, they have yet to respond and start accepting debate challenges. The voting floor is set a... | 1 |
Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | [
"The international community should actively support the creation of a Palestinian state\nI would like to thank ConservativePolitico for accepting this debate which happens to coincide with the latest Israeli military offensive on Palestinian-Arabs which the Israeli government has disingenuously titled \"Operation ... | [
"A Palestinian State The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between \"Jewis... | 1 |
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | [
"Legalization of suicide\nYou idiot. people are Humans, once we don't exist anymore, We won't exist people will sucide over an Game, or an Bullying, Do you like being bullied for being fat, I'll Bully you for right now, Me- You idiot, Lets go.. You- Lets go where..? Me- Come with me you idiot. You- Okay.... Me- Dra... | [
"Euthanasia I'll state my position and then my contentions. My position is that Elective Suicide is Okay. My position is that Assisted Suicide is Not Okay. My contention is that power of attorney is too easy to abuse and people can be coerced or end up with a person who doesn't have their best wishes at heart makin... | 1 |
Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | [
"the federal income tax should be abolished\nHigh cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food. Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just ... | [
"The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed Let me offer my rebuttals. Some concepts of the bill may be bipartisan, but the bill is not. Also, we live in a different era then we did in the \"Work Together\" era in politics. We have a $14.6 trillion national debt. It's extremely important to be very ca... | 1 |
Do standardized tests improve education? | [
"Should grades be abolished\nGrades should be abolished because they demotivate children towards studies. An extra-ordinary student or someone intelligent student would it totally against the students of intelligent class. It is like giving some special treatment to a majority of students. If I had been HRD Ministe... | [
"Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Okay first of all, standardized testing is needed to see where each individual is at academic wise. Standardized testing is proved to be the only way to see that without having to do one kid at a time and not having control over the classroom. Second of all, stand... | 1 |
Should more gun control laws be enacted? | [
"Gun Control\nWashington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a \"smoking gun\" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion,\" April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law bannin... | [
"The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced. 1. And did these studies about Chicago compare the area with surrounding areas without gun laws--that is to say, did it use controls? If not, it's useless. Real, controlled studies found that DC's gun laws saved 42 lives a year[1], and that just having a gun in yo... | 1 |
Should prostitution be legal? | [
"Pornography should be illegal and prostitution should be legal.\nYou're very confused my adversary. There is a clear difference between drug trafficking and human trafficking. There is a reason why human trafficking is illegal and its ironic on how you are in support of this. It seems like you don't know the victi... | [
"Prostitution should be legalized and regulated Case 1: The part about \"regulation\" and \"safety\" would include STI and HIV screenings. If legalized prostitution were to be kept safe, infected prostitutes would not be allowed to work. If anything, this is an argument in favor of safety in the industry rather tha... | 1 |
Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | [
"NCFL/CatNats LD 2010 topic\nThanks, Pro, for beginning this debate. Re: Contention 1 \"[Illegal immigrants] live here, they pay higher taxes than most Americans, they fill up the jobs most Americans are too lazy to take. But yet we denie them citizenship. We denie them healthcare, insurance, voting rights, etc. Th... | [
"Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US I extend my cases for the fairness of this debate.",
"Home sweet home The money that these immigrants earn are sent directly to Mexico and the countries they come from where they send to their families. Giving thes... | 1 |
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | [
"Gun Control\nWashington DC proves that handgun bans are effective in preventing homicides and suicides The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2007 [What a handgun ban didn't do for D.C.: Is there a \"smoking gun\" that proves the efficacy of gun laws? Or are such claims based on illusion,\" April 9, Lexis] The D.C. law bannin... | [
"Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killi... | 1 |
Is obesity a disease? | [
"Sports and Obesity\nSports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you\"re a Jew.",
"Obesity is a disease.\nObesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces yo... | [
"A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity Though one might be inclined to agree with the statement, that a fat tax on its own would be insufficient to solve the problem of rising obesity, it is also simply not the case. There are numerous educational campaigns underway, from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver... | 1 |
Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | [
"Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise\nElectronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 el... | [
"Recent voter ID laws major purpose is to keep people from voting (details) 1)The often said reason for these new voter ID laws is to prevent and to eliminate the problem of voter fraud. However the fact remains that voter fraud really does not happen. For example over a 5 year period the government found only 70 c... | 1 |
Should people become vegetarian? | [
"The World Should Become Vegetarian\nI sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.",
"Should People Become Vegetarian\nMany people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controve... | [
"Vegetarianism is a good idea. Thank you to Leekatya for what looks to be a promising and respectful debate. Good luck to you. I'd like to start out by stating my position on the subject of vegetarianism. While I certainly don't think it is bad, I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone who wants to (or ... | 1 |
Are social networking sites good for our society? | [
"Social networking sites are harmful.\nSocial networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as L... | [
"social networking sites should be banned..!!! Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.",
"social media good for young children I cannot agree with you more in the sense that it must be used appropriately but I do not believe that the benefits of Social Media in any way shape or form can outwe... | 1 |
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | [
"Can video games be healthy\nMy final argument is as follows:- Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a sc... | [
"Do games teach kids violence. We aren't even debating the existence of a causal link, only the fact that children learn violence from video games. I hereby provide quotes from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to settle this issue once and for all.\"Some r... | 1 |
Is golf a sport? | [
"does golf is a real sport\nGolf is already officially categorized as a sport!",
"Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf\nThanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that \"If both are sports,... | [
"Sport is a great way to stay fit and healthy. This is very important today as few people have jobs ... It is important to keep fit, but sport is not the only way to do this. Eating well is a big part of a healthy life, and many people prefer to exercise in other ways, for example jogging, working out in a gym, dan... | 0 |
Is cell phone radiation safe? | [
"They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.\nQuite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. \"Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,\" Journal of the... | [
"Should teenagers be aloud to have cell phones Think about cell phones in the way that it can teach teens responsibility. I do understand what you said about the risk of being the victim of cyber bullying. However, we should teach teens to learn to have responsibility over everything they do with their cell phone, ... | 0 |
Should marijuana be a medical option? | [
"Medical Marijuana\nMy opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact ... | [
"Medical Marijuana The FDA recently reported that there were not scientific studies that support The use of medical marijuana. If a physician prescribes it in an area where it isn't even legal, they could lose their licenses. There wouldn't be a problem with the FDA is there wasn't an issue with using medical marij... | 1 |
Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | [
"The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour\nSummary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The... | [
"The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$ Ha sorry I thought this debate was stupid do you realize what would happen if the minimum wage was 20$",
"Should Minimum Wage Be Raised Minimum Wage should not be raised simply because I believe that one should be qualified to have a high standard of minimum wage. What... | 1 |
Should the death penalty be allowed? | [
"death penalty\nTo explain the idiotic forfeit, my mom stole my computer which forced me to forfeit. Sorry about that. Give my opponent the conduct point. 1st, just because most Americans are pro-death penalty does not mean that we should do what they say. 139 countries having abolished it after using capital punis... | [
"The Death Penalty should be kept and enforced. I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadne... | 1 |
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | [
"Student Loan Debt\nI thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's \"contention\"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's coll... | [
"A bill to increase funding for the biosciences I disagree, I think America has much more urgent matters on their hands like the growing debt that is owed. America should indeed reallocate those funds but towards paying the debt off before trying to invest in something like that.",
"Bachelor's Degree The topic fo... | 1 |
Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | [
"Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey\nWhile fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets a... | [
"BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports Thank you for joining the debate. I would now like to take the time to present my first point, Desensitization.believe that if we have violence on TV then that will lead to even more violence. People thought that watching violence on TV would get violence out of their systems... | 1 |
Should bottled water be banned? | [
"Bottled water should be banned\nit should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular b... | [
"Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. Yes the U.S. government does hold more power than the state, but that's not the argument here. The current power over the regulation of water belongs to the state, and to change that would be catastrophic. The system already wor... | 1 |
Should election day be a national holiday? | [
"The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.\nHistory: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with... | [
"It would be beneficial to the nation (USA) to remove the electoral college system. Getting rid of the electoral college system.... Unconstitutional.",
"hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relat... | 1 |
Should the penny stay in circulation? | [
"In the US, pennies should be abolished.\nAs part of its new budget, Canada will get rid of its penny, saving taxpayers more than C$11 million, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since production in 1908, the bank has produced more than 35 billion pennies, but circulation will end sometime in 2012. As part of c... | [
"Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. I watched the video, but I do implore that pro actually types out his own arguments.Contention 1: Penny is Useless?In the video my opponent brings up states that the penny is useless. But here's an interesting thing. I actually find pennies and then use them at garage... | 0 |
Should net neutrality be restored? | [
"Network neutrality\nNet Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem",
"The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality\nTaking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, ev... | [
"Some data should be allowed to move faster \"EDITORIAL: Net neutrality. Another solution in search of a problem.\" Las Vegas Review-Journal. March 18th, 2010: \"A market exists to charge a premium to guarantee the immediate delivery of huge volumes of content and information -- think videoconferencing and big data... | 1 |
Should the voting age be lowered? | [
"The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16\nIn the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enou... | [
"Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Thanks for this amzing reply. I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems. The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife o... | 1 |
Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | [
"Crime cameras\nCrime cameras help restore a public sense of safety",
"Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.\nI will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the Uni... | [
"Punishments for police misconduct need to be more severe. click=\"document.location='/Weiler/photos/album/2941/19971/'\" src=\"../../../photos/albums/1/3/2941/100192-2941-xqm48-a.jpg\" alt=\"\" />?",
"Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. To start off, I'd like to address Pro'... | 1 |
Should everyone get a universal basic income? | [
"Universal Basic Income\nIntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower sch... | [
"The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Every country that has implemented universal health care, has seen that the sustem fails the citizens. The government will end up paying for the health care and seeing as how it will be paying for every person in America, the costs will go up sig... | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.