_id
stringlengths 36
39
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|
ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00003-000
|
No, they cheated therefore they shouldn't make the hall of fame. It doesn't matter if a lot of players did it. They cheated therefore they should be penalized. The people who make the Hall of Fame should be in there because of their honor to the game, not for cheating and deceiving people so they can have a physical advantage. You said that there are many "incredible players" in the Mitchell Report. Don't you think maybe they were so incredible because they used steriods and performance enhancing drugs? If they didn't use them they wouldn't be as good as the stats show. I understand players are out there to get theirs and get as much money as they can, but what about the true players of the game who aren't using these performing enhancing drugs. They did the right thing and won't make the hall of fame because they might have decent numbers over their career but the ones who used performance enhancing drugs had better stats than them because they cheated.
|
4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00000-000
|
Australia Day is a day to celebrate because if it wasn't for white people we wouldn't have the things we have now such as shops, cars, buildings, all of us would not be here today. We introduced animals such as cows and horses. Australia wouldn't of been developed the way it is today if it wasn't for white people. We should celebrate Australia day on the 26th of January because we are celebrating the good. Even though Australia did wrong, positives came out of this as well. January 26th is the the day to celebrate Australia day.
|
934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00001-000
|
There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...
|
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00001-000
|
1. I've already pointed out to you how the Department of Health and Human Services could take it on if they are given competent leadership and adequate resources. They already run Social Security and Medicare, in addition to many other programs. Why wouldn't they be able to handle a restructuring of their priorities and administrate a new program? You give absolutely no reason explaining why my points in the previous round are not sufficient enough. Yes, you're right. There are three branches of government. They do have divisions within them, such as committees in Congress or individual agencies in the Executive branch. What does any of this have to do with proving a cabinet-level department can't run large programs when I've already given you plenty of examples to the contrary? There isn't much I can do if I give you examples proving my point, but you dismiss them out of hand based simply on your opinion without any evidence to back it up. 2. That isn't what I said at all. It's like you aren't even paying attention to my points and instead respond to what you wish I said. These taxes would be imposed on all of the payers from the outset. The parties that pay into the taxes for the program, the less they are for any one party. I haven't done a detailed analysis of how much would be needed down to the dollar, but based on the site I listed at the bottom of my last round, the country would save $350 billion on administrative costs alone. This is just one area where we would save lots of money with the single-payer system I mentioned, so I doubt if any taxes would be needed beyond what I mentioned before. The current recession is being lead by the housing market and the problems with credit associated with it. Banks around the world got caught up in our mortgage mess, and now they are all paying the price as well. A single-payer system would have nothing to do with this at all. It might cost some jobs in some areas, but create a lot of jobs in other areas, so that would either be neutral or be a positive. What rates are dropping? Insurance rates? Where did you get that from? I think you're confusing insurance rates with interest rates. The Fed cut interest rates. They have nothing to do cutting rates for health care at all. I wanted to debate universal health care, not educate you on the current state of the economy. Your lack of understanding the basics of our economy and the current state of it is dragging this debate down. 3. Why? Why can't you have universal coverage and private practices? You give absolutely no reasons to back up your claims. It's universal coverage, not universal provision. A single-payer system would be paid for by the government, but the payments would be made to private providers, just like how Medicare does it now. Again, your lack of understanding of the system is dragging this debate down. Some of medical inflation is due to the development of new medical devices and machinery. That is natural. Inflation due to the example I listed above wouldn't happen because HMOs would no longer be able to cut hospitals and doctors off at the knees. Also, the sales tax on the advertising and lobbying expenditures of pharmaceuticals and drug manufacturers would also provide them with an incentive to cut their costs, thus cutting prices. Device manufacturers current spend billions of dollars on lobbying doctors to use their devices, regardless of whether they are the best devices or not. Drug companies only spend 13% of revenues on R&D while they take 17% in profits and over 30% on advertising. THIS IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO EXPENSIVE. Not only would the tax either drive these prices down or help the government pay for their price, but the government's enormous negotiating power would also force these companies to drive down their prices, as well as get hospitals to strip out the inflation they have added to the system. These reasons are why inflation would be cut and reversed under the system I advocate. What hospitals would be lost? Where did that come from? 4. Hospitals will be as poor as other countries? What? I already illustrated how hospitals would be paid much more regularly and at a fair rate. They wouldn't be undercut by greedy HMOs that only pay 30% of the bill presented to them. None of the arguments you've mentioned, at least the ones where I can figure out what it is you're trying to say, have addressed this. If public hospitals get reimbursed more, regardless from where it's coming from, they don't have to tax localities as much to keep themselves running. That's just common sense. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say. 5. That's a nice article, but it doesn't explain much of anything. it only looks at our system. If our system is so efficient, then we would have the same numbers of life expectancy and infant mortality (among others) as other countries at the top of the WHO's list. Western Europeans, on average, live longer, have more children live through birth and infancy, have lower rates of disease and live healthier, all while spending FAR less than we do. Here, check this out: http://www.kff.org... We spend over $2 trillion on health care, but we get beat in just about every health category that matters. In just 7 years, that number is expected to double. And you're trying to tell me that our system is efficient and effective, especially after the numbers and examples I've given you about how inefficient our system is? 6. No, you didn't mention anything about trickle down economics above. Besides, what does that have to do with anything in this debate? Given the point in your life you're in, 25% doesn't mean anything to you. But once you're paying rent or a mortgage, paying for a car, utilities, food, credit card bills, etc., you'll understand what taking 25% of your income to pay for medical bills. Often times, its a lot worse than that. Sometimes it eats up everything they make, and thats when they have to file for bankruptcy. When this happens, everyone loses out: the hospital, the doctor, and everyone that person owed money to. When that happens, we all end up paying more to make up for what their creditors lost out on. We already pay for everyone else's inability to pay for medical care. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you're just going to keep dismissing that fact without any reason to back up your rationale. Just saying it doesn't make it so. 7. I have already explained repeatedly how doctors would be working in much better conditions than they do now. Yet, you continue to say it would be worse but don't give any reasons that I haven't already addressed as to why I'm wrong. Their wages would be the same, and they would get to keep much more of what they make since they wouldn't have to fight HMOs for every dollar they make. And no, getting paid for their services is not a trivial matter. You assuming there are other reasons for my NP friend paying for so many clerical staff does not mean there were. 8. Once again, you're ignoring what I said and continue to insist on your opinion without giving any evidence to back it up. 9. So you think that a rich person's life is more important to save just because they can pay for adequate care? Ok. 10. Did you even read the criteria? This is ho they judged the countries: "WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)." I'll address why you're wrong about Canada in my next round.
|
75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00002-000
|
Yes because it is just and prevents those rapists and terrible criminals from further harming our society
|
d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00002-000
|
In the working world you have to interact with the opposite gender frequently. Thus, it would be detrimental to raise a child in an envrionment where the only 'work' they do is with those of thier own gender.
|
d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00003-000
|
Parliamentary debating is done in real-time and requires a team of debaters so I honestly do not see how on Earth we can stick to it. Nevertheless, I accept and am looking forward to this debate.
|
d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00004-000
|
This debate follows the standard rules of parliamentary debating. http://www.apdaweb.org... for rules 1st round acceptance only. 2-4 are debate.
|
d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00002-000
|
Alright thanks for the quick response Pro. I will try to organize these refutations as best as I can, as Pro's arguments and refutations are all over the place. Refutation 1:Pro says, "Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills."Yes, I agree, but this is common to all professional sports. It is not just hockey where you need to re-learn and re-master fundamental skills. So by this basis, it is logical to assume that all sports are equally difficult. Pro also says, "In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back."As I have already mentioned, it is also very difficult to learn to swim, much more difficult than learning to skate. Pro has not adressed why skating is much more difficult to learn then swimming, so I would assume that he agrees with me (I will get more into this later). As Pro has said, professional players spend "Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills." This would mean that water sports like swimming, or water polo is much more difficult than hockey since these players must relearn fundamental skills, and swimming is harder to learn than hockey.Pro also says, "A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively."What I would say to that is, isn't baseball the same thing? Your bat needs to be an extension of your hands, and you need the same hand eye coordination and focus that hockey has, or you'll get hit in the face with a ball travelling at 90mph. Therefore, by pro's logic, baseball and hockey and water sports would have equal difficulty, proving that hockey is not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. And with jostling and learning where to move, and crucial positioning, in all sports there is some form of this. In basketball, you box out defenders to get the rebound, and in soccer you jostle defenders to get that head from the corner kick.I guess what I'm really saying here is that a lot of the skills between sports are transferrable, like learning where to move and getting good positioning. Therefore, it would mean that all sports are equally difficult.Pro says that " In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general."Isn't that the same with all sports? If you break a leg severely, you will need to re-learn to walk. If you break your arm, you will need to relearn how to throw a ball. It is the same with all sports.Refutation 2:What Pro has provided in this refutation is examples of times where players have maintained focus in the face of danger. And he says this is why ice hockey is a difficult sport.There are many other sports that require the same focus in the face of danger. Like Pro, I can pull examples like these all day. Let's start doing that actually.In football, the quarterback has to maintain focus in order to hit that long pass to his teammate. During this time, there are several 200 pound people running at you trying to tackle you. But still, you need to get the timing right, and throw that pass, even if it means that you'll get crushed under several guys.In baseball, the batter has to maintain focus in order to hit the ball that is traveling at 90mph towards him. Therefore, in all sports you need to maintain focus in the face of danger. Therefore, they are all equally difficult. Refutation 3:Exactly everything can be relative! There is no actual proof that hockey is the hardest sport to play, that is merely an opinion. And you have not even been able to prove that hockey is indeed a difficult sport to play. I have already proved many times that alot of sports require the same skills, therefore making all sports equally difficult to play. Pro also says that there are more people who can swim than skate. But that is not a sufficient measurement of difficulty. The only reason why this is true is because of certain conditions around the world. And please, find me the source where you got that fact. Rebuilding:Therefore, because you cannot provide this information, you can't just say that hockey is the hardest sport to play. As you said, most players devote their full attenion to hockey. Therefore, how can they know that hockey is the hardest sport if they have not tried every single other professional sport? There is no way to tell.Obviously, when hockey players say that hockey is the hardest sport, it is opinion based. And as Pro said earlier, it is annoying. Therefore, that entire argument is invalid.Conclusion:I have not provided any relative arguments today. I proved why all sports are equally difficult, as they require much of the same skills. (hand eye coordination, focus, etc.)It is not just hockey where you need these skills in order to play professional hockey. In Pro's recap he says:"Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING."I will use a similar conclusion.All sports is and continue to be equally difficult to master and play at a high level. Most sports are team games, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, invovles hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy, and most importantly and most underated SWIMMING.Therefore, all sports are equally difficult.
|
59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000
|
The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...
|
40696eea-2019-04-18T17:32:07Z-00003-000
|
why should school abolish they should not,because co-education might help student to compete each other studying.
|
e9b44971-2019-04-18T13:56:01Z-00003-000
|
This debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like "Hate". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.
|
8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00002-000
|
Due to the fact my opponent's account has been closed, this debate is null. I please ask you not to vote.
|
8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00003-000
|
Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.
|
1c1c7401-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00003-000
|
i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body. Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.
|
8294b441-2019-04-18T17:22:30Z-00003-000
|
Video Games DO cause violence. The violent nature of our generations of current games brainwash peoples minds into thinking it's, "Just a game." Or, "It's not bad." Little do they know it makes them into killers.
|
33a444c-2019-04-18T15:58:58Z-00002-000
|
Let's consider Pro's round two arguments in favor of nuclear energy: Amount The first of these is the amount of fuel available, and how long it could potentially last. The figures quoted here are so rubbery and based on speculation as to be pretty well meaningless. We are told that based on current consumption rates and current known supplies there is around 230 years worth of material remaining. This is fair enough. Then, we are told that using other sources of uranium, and other radioactive elements and isotopes that are not currently in use, and fission technologies that are not yet in production, the figure "could" be raised to thirty thousand years. That's a massive jump, and a lot of "ifs". Finally, Pro makes the claim that "it may be so that, at current energy consumption, we could sustain ourselves for 1 million years on nuclear fission reactions alone." This is a quantum leap from the thirty thousand quoted in the referenced article, and the source is not quoted. Pro, could you please provide the source of this claim? Pro closes his argument by stating "Nuclear energy clearly has much greater reserves than fossil fuels, and energy that is always available, unlike renewables". Unlike the elastic figures and speculation about future technologies used by the nuclear industry to estimate there may be around 30,000 years worth of atomic fuel left, we know for certain that "The sun runs out of hydrogen fuel in its core about five billion years from now"[1]. Furthermore, since winds are caused by heating of the Earth by the sun, we know for certain without any speculation that there is five billion years worth of renewable energy left, regardless of how much is used. Efficiency According to Pro, "Nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient that other forms of energy, as it has a greater capacity factor and lower per unit energy costs than than other forms of energy, both fossil fuels and renewable." This argument is just not true, as typically, figures quoted by nuclear energy producers look only at ongoing production costs, and ignore massive initial setup costs - for example $10 billion to construct a reactor, and clean up costs of up to hundreds of billions of dollars (as discussed in my round two argument) when something goes wrong. "Cheap" atomic energy is based largely on massive subsidies: "Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."[2] Furthermore, private sector investors recognize that nuclear is not an economically viable energy option for the future: "Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants." Only continued massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive."[2] In summary, as Time Magazine eloquently puts it: "private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill."[3] Environment This is where the pro nuclear lobby have to stretch the furthest. According to Pro, "Nuclear energy actually has very little effect on the environment". Perhaps Pro should try convincing the Navajo people, whose lands were used for uranium mining from 1944 til 1986, of that. It is no coincidence that "Risk of lung cancer among male Navajo uranium miners was 28 times higher than in Navajo men who never mined"[4]. In addition, "Rates of birth defects in babies born to Navajo women living in uranium mining areas in New Mexico and Arizona between 1964 and 1981 were 2 to 8 times the national averages, depending on the type of defect."[4] Or perhaps he should try convincing the Scottish farmers of the "minimal" environmental impact of nuclear power generation: "The direct consequences of the accident [Chernobyl] were felt in Scotland until 2010 when the last of the agricultural restrictions put in place following the catastrophe were lifted".[5] But it isn't over yet. Even today, 28 years after Chernobyl, "the country could still face contamination from the world's worst nuclear accident if the 1,600-mile exclusion zone around the now defunct power plant goes up in flames. The forests have been allowed to grow wild and unmanaged since the tragedy almost three decades ago and have continued to absorb contamination still evident in the area. Raising temperatures and lack of rain have now created a serious risk of a massive blaze, which could rage on for several days and have far-reaching consequences. Lack of resources mean spotting and putting out flames before they burn out of control is near impossible although a core group of volunteers is trying to do their best. Scientists in Scotland agree the prospect of redistribution of contaminated particles is "very real""[5]. The radioactive half life of products used in nuclear power generation ranges from tens of years to millions of years. Radioactive products which are left laying on the ground (tailings), or buried under the ground or ocean leave an environmental legacy that could last well beyond the life expectancy of the human race. And now I'd like to consider some additional arguments raised by Pro in round three: Firstly, we have this rather odd statement: "The only real consideration for nuclear waste is the radioactivity and the potential threat to life that it creates. However, the considerations are not important". Hopefully, this represents an unfortunate choice of words, and not really a total disregard of the many tens of thousands who have already died or will die as a result of accidents which have already occurred in the nuclear industry. Concerning storage of nuclear by products, various solutions are being explored globally; but no permanent solutions have been implemented. One pro-nuclear source admits: "Currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently".[6] Regarding transportation of nuclear waste, Pro states that "elaborate packaging" reduces the chance of a catastrophe to almost none. It would be interesting to see the "probabilistic risk analysis" on which these figures were based, but it is not essential, because the argument ignores the most significant factor - the potential for terrorism. As I pointed out in round two, this month has seen the first recorded instance of a deliberate attack on a nuclear reactor. Particularly with the increasing use of drone technology, the potential for an attack on radioactive materials during transport is a very real, and very frightening possibility. And no amount of "elaborate packaging" will be effective against a missile attack. The remaining arguments from Pro in this round seem to be, in the main, denials of plain facts on the dangers of radioactivity from the nuclear industry. For example: - "Miners of radioactive materials are actually much safer than are popularly believed". - "As for genetic mutations, again, while the risk is there, the dangers and probabilities of receiving any adverse effects are small." - "As for nuclear disasters, these are actually very rare" - " " core melting and containment failure " can cause few if any deaths to the public, regardless of the scenario that led to the core melt and containment failure." All of these claims are contradicted by facts that I have raised in round two. Rather than refute them again here, I will refer to them in the last round when I summarise our respective cases. And finally, on the subject of economic viability, Pro cites an article by the Nuclear Energy Institute in saying: " "Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U.S. economy." A big cost equals an even bigger gain". Again, this claim by a major interest group is simply smoke and mirrors. It refers to the yearly "economic output" from a typical nuclear power generator, and claims it to be in the order of $470 million dollars per year. Yet what is not factored into this is the cost to construct the reactor in the first place. Even allowing for only $8 billion dollars which is claimed in the article, this gives an interest bill alone (at a modest 5%) of over $400 million dollars per year, which virtually wipes out all profits made. In comparison to this, renewable energy sources have negligible construction costs and vastly lower operating costs. References: [1] http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu... [2] http://www.motherearthnews.com... [3] http://content.time.com... [4] http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us... [5] http://www.express.co.uk... [6] http://nuclearinfo.net...
|
f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00003-000
|
My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating "game" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of "cleaning" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he "naturally" had 40"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has "given my blood the legal "boost" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. "25 There is one way to boost an athlete"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. "By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. " There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.
|
1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00006-000
|
Students learn enough in the classroom. They do not need to go home and do more work when it is not needed.
|
d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00006-000
|
However, I wish to lay out one additional rule:In the event of a forfeiture, the voter will award the opposing opponent a 7-point victory. I also accept my opponent's statement about opinions. They shall only be used when supported by factual evidence. I look forward to this debate with WilliamsP and hope is turns out well.
|
d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00007-000
|
I have already debated jamccartney on this very issue. However, my defeat was justified. I was on vacation, had horrible internet, and thus my argument was horrible. I am now ready to try again. I challenge my good friend jamccartney to this debate. This debate will follow a judge voting system. Each debater has 72 hours to present his argument. There will be four total rounds. In the first round, my opponent will simply accept this debate. In the second round, my opponent and I will present our main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round. In the third round, my opponent and I will offer rebuttals and any final arguments. In the fourth and final round, we will offer final rebuttals and write conclusions, which will summarize the debate. All sources will be cited using the MLA format. Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization will be used. There will be no forfeiture or concession. This debate will be rational, mature, logical, and factual. Opinions will only be stated when supported by facts. I look forward to this debate and await my opponent's acceptance.
|
c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000
|
Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn’t enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: ‘a’ (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that ‘reason 1’ is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 2 and 6’ ‘b’‘c’ What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn’t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don’t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn’t have been employed and wouldn’t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn’t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. ‘d’ Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators’ fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure’s fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 3’ A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ ‘e’ This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 5’ ‘f’ This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 7’ ‘g’ I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled ‘Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis’ [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn’t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school – e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro’s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for ‘Reason 8’ ‘h’ 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro’s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn’t ‘collective bargaining, state law and federal law’ be unnecessary too because ‘job protections granted through court rulings’ can offer this protection already? Wouldn’t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I’ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: ‘i’ The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. ‘It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is ‘not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.’ In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn’t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her – not only is it unsupportive of her argument – it is even against it. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’ I have explained in my Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn’t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (‘j’) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’ Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. ‘k’ This, I have already explained why it is not true in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: Pro failed to support ‘reason 1’ with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. ‘l’ If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro’s assertion ‘m’ (incidentally, she uses the wrong ‘then’) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn’t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. ‘n’ [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro’s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn’t. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro’s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro’s arguments heavily rely on ‘appeal to emotion’ and ‘circular reasoning’. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...
|
c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000
|
Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for "academic freedom"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: "Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. "(Rebuttal for "high standard"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: "Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. " This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.
|
c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00002-000
|
Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument. In this debate, I will argue that ‘there should be a teacher tenure.’ Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that ‘teacher tenure’ should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this. Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them. First I will define the word ‘tenure’.Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period. Please note that: Tenure doesn’t guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that’s required of the teacher. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired. In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people. 1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers. Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer. Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers’ academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own. Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo’s academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place. 2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students. Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard. Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4] These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students. Brief summary of my arguments 1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate. Links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nea.org... [4] http://blogs.edweek.org... [5] http://www.joebaugher.com...
|
c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00003-000
|
Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle
|
c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00005-000
|
Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing to get rid of the teacher tenure.
|
d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000
|
Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no.
|
68fed5c1-2019-04-18T19:35:23Z-00000-000
|
I regret that my opponent has forfeited this round as I enjoyed the debate.
|
2671a1e6-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00003-000
|
The death penalty is necessary, because some people are so vile they can never be in contact with society without harming it in some way. Truly evil people do exist and they harm others - sometimes killing or ruining lives through their actions. This is not something that should be acceptable or allowed to continue without punishment to deter others with a like mentality.
|
10cdf65f-2019-04-18T12:30:37Z-00000-000
|
Abstract Although child vaccination rates remain high, some parental concern persists that vaccines might cause autism. Three specific hypotheses have been proposed: (1) the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining, which allows the entrance of encephalopathic proteins; (2) thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system; and (3) the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system. We will discuss the genesis of each of these theories and review the relevant epidemiological evidence. A worldwide increase in the rate of autism diagnoses"likely driven by broadened diagnostic criteria and increased awareness"has fueled concerns that an environmental exposure like vaccines might cause autism. Theories for this putative association have centered on the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, thimerosal, and the large number of vaccines currently administered. However, both epidemiological and biological studies fail to support these claims. MMR On 28 February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, and colleagues [1] published a paper in The Lancet that described 8 children whose first symptoms of autism appeared within 1 month after receiving an MMR vaccine. All 8 of these children had gastrointestinal symptoms and signs and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia revealed on endoscopy. From these observations, Wakefield postulated that MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually nonpermeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development. Several issues undermine the interpretation by Wakefield et al. [1] of this case series. First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Because W64;50,000 British children per month received MMR vaccine between ages 1 and 2 years"at a time when autism typically presents"coincidental associations were inevitable. Indeed, given the prevalence of autism in England in 1998 of 1 in 2000 children [2], W64;25 children per month would receive a diagnosis of the disorder soon after receiving MMR vaccine by chance alone. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third, gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides. Fourth, measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Indeed, a recent study by Hornig et al. [3] found that the measles vaccine virus genome was not detected more commonly in children with or without autism. Fifth, putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. In contrast, the genes that have been associated with autism spectrum disorder to date have been found to code for endogenous proteins that influence neuronal synapse function, neuronal cell adhesion, neuronal activity regulation, or endosomal trafficking [4]. Although no data supporting an association between MMR vaccine and autism existed and a plausible biological mechanism was lacking, several epidemiologic studies were performed to address parental fears created by the publication by Wakefield et al. [1] (table 1). Fortunately, several features of large-scale vaccination programs allowed for excellent descriptive and observational studies"specifically, large numbers of subjects, which generated substantial statistical power; high-quality vaccination records, which provided reliable historical data; multinational use of similar vaccine constituents and schedules; electronic medical records, which facilitated accurate analysis of outcome data; and the relatively recent introduction of MMR vaccine in some countries, which allowed for before and after comparisons. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Ecological studies.Researchers in several countries performed ecological studies that addressed the question of whether MMR vaccine causes autism. Such analyses employ large databases that compare vaccination rates with autism diagnoses at the population level. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992 who were identified by computerized health records from 8 health districts [5]. Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed. Further, MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population. Also, investigators did not observe a clustering of autism diagnoses relative to the time that children received MMR vaccine, nor did they observe a difference in age at autism diagnosis between those vaccinated and not vaccinated or between those vaccinated before or after 18 months of age. These authors also found no differences in autism rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children when they extended their analysis to include a longer time after MMR exposure or a second dose of MMR [6]. Also in the United Kingdom, researchers performed a time-trend analysis using the General Practice Research Database"a high-quality, extensively validated electronic medical record with virtually complete vaccination data [7]. More than 3 million person-years of observation during 1988"1999 confirmed an increase in autism diagnoses despite stable MMR vaccination rates. In California, researchers compared year-specific MMR vaccination rates of kindergarten students with the yearly autism case load of the California Department of Developmental Services during 1980"1994 [8]. As was observed in the United Kingdom, the increase in the number of autism diagnoses did not correlate with MMR vaccination rates. In Canada, researchers estimated the prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder with respect to MMR vaccination in 27,749 children from 55 schools in Quebec [9]. Autism rates increased coincident with a decrease in MMR vaccination rates. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied, including a strict diagnosis of autism. Additional population-based studies considered the relationship between MMR vaccine and the "new variant" form of autism proposed by Wakefield et al. [1]"specifically, developmental regression with gastrointestinal symptoms. Although it is difficult to analyze such a phenomenon when it is unclear that one exists (which complicates the formulation of a case definition), conclusions may be gleaned from the data with respect to developmental regression alone (i.e., autism irrespective of coincident bowel problems). In England, researchers performed a cross-sectional study of 262 autistic children and demonstrated no difference in age of first parental concerns or rate of developmental regression by exposure to MMR vaccine [10]. No association between developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms was observed. In London, an analysis of 473 autistic children used the 1987 introduction of MMR to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts [11]. The incidence of developmental regression did not differ between cohorts, and the authors observed no difference in the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated autistic children. Two conclusions are evident from these data. First, the explicit consideration of developmental regression among autistic children does not alter the consistent independence of MMR vaccine and autism. Second, these data argue against the existence of a new variant form of autism. Retrospective, observational studies.Four retrospective, observational studies addressed the relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. In the United Kingdom, 71 MMR-vaccinated autistic children were compared with 284 MMR-vaccinated matched control children through use of the Doctor's Independent Network, a general practice database [12]. The authors observed no differences between case and control children in practitioner consultation rates"a surrogate for parental concerns about their child's development"within 6 months after MMR vaccination, which suggests that the diagnosis of autism was not temporally related to MMR vaccination. In Finland, using national registers, researchers linked hospitalization records to vaccination records in 535,544 children vaccinated during 1982"1986 [13]. Of 309 children hospitalized for autistic disorders, no clustering occurred relative to the time of MMR vaccination. In Denmark, again using a national registry, researchers determined vaccination status and autism diagnosis in 537,303 children born during 1991"1998 [14]. The authors observed no differences in the relative risk of autism between those who did and those who did not receive MMR vaccine. Among autistic children, no relationship between date of vaccination and development of autism was observed. In metropolitan Atlanta, using a developmental surveillance program, researchers compared 624 autistic children with 1824 matched control children [15]. Vaccination records were obtained from state immunization forms. The authors observed no differences in age at vaccination between autistic and nonautistic children, which suggests that early age of MMR vaccine exposure was not a risk factor for autism. Prospective observational studies.Capitalizing on a long-term vaccination project maintained by the National Board of Health, investigators in Finland performed 2 prospective cohort studies. Researchers prospectively recorded adverse events associated with MMR-vaccinated children during 1982"1996 and identified 31 with gastrointestinal symptoms; none of the children developed autism [16]. A further analysis of this cohort revealed no vaccine-associated cases of autism among 1.8 million children [17]. Although this cohort was analyzed using a passive surveillance system, the complete absence of an association between gastrointestinal disease and autism after MMR vaccination was compelling. Thimerosal Thimerosal"50% ethylmercury by weight"is an antibacterial compound that has been used effectively in multidose vaccine preparations for >50 years [18] (thimerosal is not contained in live-virus vaccines, such as MMR). In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act mandated identification and quantification of mercury in all food and drugs; 2 years later, the US Food and Drug Administration found that children might be receiving as much as 187.5 "g of mercury within the first 6 months of life. Despite the absence of data suggesting harm from quantities of ethylmercury contained in vaccines, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service recommended the immediate removal of mercury from all vaccines given to young infants [19]. Widespread and predictable misinterpretation of this conservative, precautionary directive, coupled with a public already concerned by a proposed but unsubstantiated link between vaccination and autism, understandably provoked concern among parents, which led to the birth of several antimercury advocacy groups. However, because the signs and symptoms of autism are clearly distinct from those of mercury poisoning, concerns about mercury as a cause of autism were"similar to those with MMR vaccine"biologically implausible [20]; children with mercury poisoning show characteristic motor, speech, sensory, psychiatric, visual, and head circumference changes that are either fundamentally different from those of or absent in children with autism. Consistent with this, a study performed by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention years later showed that mercury in vaccines did not cause even subtle signs or symptoms of mercury poisoning [21]. Despite the biological implausibility of the contention that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism, 7 studies"again descriptive or observational"were performed (table 2). Four other studies have been reviewed in detail elsewhere [28] but are not discussed here because their methodology is incomplete and unclear and, thus, cause difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Ecological studies.Three ecological studies performed in 3 different countries compared the incidence of autism with thimerosal exposure from vaccines. In each case, the nationwide removal of thimerosal"which occurred in 1992 in Europe and in 2001 in the United States"allowed robust comparisons of vaccination with thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free products, as follows: In Sweden and Denmark, researchers found a relatively stable incidence of autism when thimerosal-containing vaccines were in use (1980"1990), including years when children were exposed to as much as 200 "g of ethylmercury (concentrations similar to peak US exposures) [22]. However, in 1990, a steady increase in the incidence of autism began in both countries and continued through the end of the study period in 2000, despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992. In Denmark, researchers performed a study comparing the incidence of autism in children who had received 200 "g (1961"1970), 125 "g (1970"1992), or 0 "g of thimerosal (1992"2000) and again demonstrated no relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism [23]. In Quebec, researchers grouped 27,749 children from 55 schools by date of birth and estimated thimerosal exposure on the basis of the corresponding Ministry of Health vaccine schedules. School records were obtained to determine age-specific rates of pervasive developmental disorder [9]. Thimerosal exposure and pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis were found to be independent variables. Similar to previous analyses, the highest rates of pervasive developmental disorder were found in cohorts exposed to thimerosal-free vaccines. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied. Cohort studies.Four cohort studies that examined thimerosal exposure and autism have been performed, as follows: In Denmark, researchers examined >1200 children with autism that was identified during 1990"1996, which comprised W64;3 million person-years. They found that the risk of autism did not differ between children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines and those vaccinated with thimerosal-free vaccines or between children who received greater or lower quantities of thimerosal [24]. They also found that the rates of autism increased after the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines. In the United States, using the Vaccine Safety Data Link, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined 140,887 US children born during 1991"1999, including >200 children with autism [25]. The researchers found no relationship between receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In England, researchers prospectively followed 12,810 children for whom they had complete vaccination records who were born during 1991"1992, and they found no relationship between early thimerosal exposure and deleterious neurological or psychological outcomes [26]. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated the vaccination records of 100,572 children born during 1988"1997, using the General Practice Research Database, 104 of whom were affected with autism [27]. No relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism diagnosis was observed. Too Many Vaccines When studies of MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines failed to show an association with autism, alternative theories emerged. The most prominent theory suggests that the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system and creates an interaction with the nervous system that triggers autism in a susceptible host. This theory was recently popularized in the wake of a concession by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with regard to the case of a 9-year-old girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency whose encephalopathy, which included features of autism spectrum disorder, was judged to have worsened following the receipt of multiple vaccines at age 19 months [29]. Despite reassurances by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's action should not be interpreted as scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, many in the lay press and the public have not been reassured. The notion that children might be receiving too many vaccines too soon and that these vaccines either overwhelm an immature immune system or generate a pathologic, autism-inducing autoimmune response is flawed for several reasons: Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually [31]. Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980 [30]. Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child's immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4"6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines. multiple vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. Vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines [33,",35]. In other words, vaccination does not suppress the immune system in a clinically relevant manner. However, infections with some vaccine-preventable diseases predispose children to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens [36, 37]. Therefore, the available data suggest that vaccines do not weaken the immune system. Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccina-tion precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism. No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines. Conclusions Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child's immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads. Acknowledgments Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck. J.S.G.: no conflicts.
|
612baac2-2019-04-18T17:00:36Z-00000-000
|
You do make very good points throughout our debate, but overall I still strongly believe that parents should not be allowed an excessive amount of access to their child's social media account. The parents should believe that they have raised their child with enough knowledge of potential dangers of the internet that they can avoid them. And if cyber bullying does occur the child should feel like they can seek help from their parents. Most importantly though I believe that when the parent gives the child permission to get a social media account they are giving them their trust to make the right choices with it. If the parents are constantly checking and watching over the child's social media, then there is no trust shown. For these reasons I strongly believe that parents do not have the right to check on their child's social media accounts.
|
9386e349-2019-04-18T16:54:59Z-00005-000
|
Euthanasia is the act of putting to death in a painlessly way an animal or human when they are on a painful disease or condition. Should it be legalized?
|
311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00009-000
|
In the world of sports, it is clear that there are certain sports that take more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals then other sports. In the argument that hockey is better than football, it is clear that hockey takes more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals than football, overall and in general.
|
90227f05-2019-04-18T11:32:18Z-00001-000
|
Though my opponent stated that people in the United States are constantly moving and have no time to cook at home so they rely on fast food, I strongly disagree due to there being various ways to eat healthy such as meal prepping the day before or taking healthy snacks or lunch. Yes, fast food is quick and cheap but your life and health are more important than money. According to MD health, "Extra sugar and food dye is put into fast food to make it more appealing, particularly to younger viewers. Many believe that these addicting ingredients are contributing to the growing obesity epidemic' "Most of the food additives and preservatives have negative effects on the body. One of the harmful ingredients is carcinogenics that can even cause cancer". "Fast food is often filled with ingredients such as soya, salt, cheese or mayonnaise and is often deep fried, which adds a lot of extra calories without adding any additional nutrition. Given the high amount of calories, it will take a significant amount of exercise to burn off the calories you take in. For example, it would take 7 hours of exercise to burn off the calories in a large Coke, fries and a Big Mac from McDonalds. Consuming this high level of calories without burning them off can lead to additional health issues". "In addition to the medical disadvantages of fast food, the production and selling of junk food puts a significant negative impact on the environment. The amount of resources necessary to raise the meat for fast food products creates a shortage of resources around the world. For example, every pound of hamburger we consume takes 2500 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain to produce, say nothing of the land needed to raise the cattle and the grains to feed them. The animals raised to make fast food meat products are often fed antibiotics and a poor diet that causes the animals to be underdeveloped. These antibiotics and growth hormones can be passed on to those who consume the meat afterward, leading to negative health effects. Some have reported growing extra breast tissue or developing damage to the immune system from eating fast food on a regular basis". According to an article published on May 05, 2018 by UCLA, "Food is like a pharmaceutical compound that affects the brain," said Fernando G"mez-Pinilla, a UCLA professor of neurosurgery and physiological science who has spent years studying the effects of food, exercise and sleep on the brain. "Diet, exercise and sleep have the potential to alter our brain health and mental function. This raises the exciting possibility that changes in diet are a viable strategy for enhancing cognitive abilities, protecting the brain from damage and counteracting the effects of aging. "Excess calories can reduce the flexibility of synapses and increase the vulnerability of cells to damage by causing the formation of free radicals. Moderate caloric restriction could protect the brain by reducing oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, G"mez-Pinilla said". According to MSN, In 2013, the Dr Oz Show in the US claimed that soda fountains are the dirtiest places in fast food joints. This was backed up by Dr Sean O"Keefe who agreed that bacteria, germs and mold grow in environments rich in sugar, ice and air. This makes hard-to-clean soda fountains veritable breeding grounds for food poisoning. According to Eat This ,Not That "The high calories in fast food are accompanied by low nutritional content. Too much of that, and your body will begin to lack the necessary nutrients it needs to function properly. "Your body is temporarily full with empty foods that don"t provide nourishment, so even though you may have eaten a lot of calories, you won"t be satisfied for long," says Amy Shapiro, MS, RD, CDN, founder of Real Nutrition NYC. According to an article published by Physcology Today, "We hold this truth to be self-evident: that Americans are seeing their waistlines expanding more than ever, with no known end to our increasing girth. The stereotype of the fat American has been reduced to a punch line the world over, disguising the dire statistics that this country leads regarding obesity and threat to national healthcare and overall quality of life. We are the fattest industrialized nation across the world, with 2/3 of Americans qualifying as overweight or obese. The obesity epidemic has spread to our nation"s youth, with 1 out of 3 children born in 2000 or after projected to develop type-2 diabetes across his or her lifetime". With this being said, People in the United States should be more aware of what fast food does to their body and their health. My opponent stated that society and their younger generations rely on fast food and that people should realize that others with busy schedules need to eat even if its NOT "HOME-MADE' but my opponent forgot to mention that its "NOT HEALTHY". YES, people with busy schedules need to eat due to it being a necessity of life but there are other options than Fast Food. Fast food has many disadvantages that causes major life threatening issues and with this being said FAST FOOD SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE U.S! http://www.md-health.com... http://newsroom.ucla.edu... https://www.eatthis.com... http://www.healthdata.org...- problem-among https://www.psychologytoday.com...
|
bbe2f561-2019-04-18T19:26:06Z-00005-000
|
The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table: [Word - Prostitution] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money [Word - Should] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [Word - Legalized] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to ==================== Prostitution is not "wrong" or "immoral" ==================== I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time. Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us!
|
42c4f44a-2019-04-18T17:17:51Z-00002-000
|
In the US, you can't receive government-provided disability funding if you don't have a disability. That isn't discrimination against the non-disabled; rather, it just happens to be a privilege for those who meet the criteria. Could we provide money to non-disabled people, as well--or could we expand the definition of "disabled" to include more people? Sure. But we don't, because we consider the privilege of receiving this kind of government funding to be exclusive. In the same way, marriage is an exclusive legal bond between a man and a woman--and we can keep expanding the definition until it becomes meaningless and EVERYONE gets the benefits of marriage, but that becomes extremely counter-intuitive.Apparently, the opponent is interested in changing the definition of marriage. Please humor me by answering this: Are you okay with the legalization of polygamous marriage? Are you okay with marriage to animals? Are you okay with marriage to inanimate objects, like chairs? Are you okay with marriage to hockey teams? You may say, "Of course a person shouldn't be able to marry a dog! A dog can't consent, and it's a non-human!" But when you say this, you are using the same logic as someone who says, "Of course you shouldn't be able to marry! You're of the same gender!" If you answer "no" to any of the above questions, explain why YOUR change in definition is superior to the polygamist or the guy who wants to marry his dog or chair!And if you say "yes" to all of these questions, then you are okay with the constant redefinition of marriage until it becomes all-inclusive. This is the slippery slope to utter meaningless. Surely, an all-inclusive marriage system would enable anyone to receive marriage-related benefits and abolish the institution of marriage as we know it. ---Opponent: The thought of two people that's [sic] not allowed to get married just because they are the same sex sickens me. We cannot judge policy based on whether or not it "sickens" my opponent.Opponent: Just because some people are religious or some people think it's disgusting doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.It is ironic that the opponent mentions "disgust" as an irrational reason to oppose gay marriage, because he uses it as a justification for his support of gay marriage. Anyway, plenty of people oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and simple disgust. ---Thank you.
|
d1b6be4-2019-04-18T14:12:16Z-00004-000
|
Legalizing drugs would make them much safer. When we decide to legalize drugs, we can make the process of getting and using drugs safer. By passing drugs through the government, instead of passing drugs through drug dealers, we can make sure that dirty needles and like aren't used when drugs are being used. Also by passing drugs through the government, we can make it so that when users buy certain drugs, they know that that drug is what they"ll be getting, instead of another drug advertised as the drug they"re buying. We can make taxes off of drugs. By passing drugs through the government, the government can impose taxes on drugs, providing a major boost to the economy.
|
8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00001-000
|
As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.
|
2476225d-2019-04-18T14:28:24Z-00007-000
|
Resolved: Welfare Should Be Abolished. Definitions: Abolished: "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)." Welfare: "A government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves." R1. Acceptance R2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con R3. Argument/Rebuttal's R4. Conclusion Sources; Abolish (https://www.google.com...) Welfare ( https://www.google.com...)
|
1094bf3d-2019-04-18T18:54:58Z-00003-000
|
I agree that there is a combination at play but I believe that nurture plays a greater role. A child only learns from what he/she experiences. A child would not understand manners if a parent doesn't suggest and teach them as a child develops. The examples we observe help us distinguish right from wrong. This is the basis in which we create our own set values and discover who we are as an individual.
|
4cab66dc-2019-04-18T19:21:26Z-00000-000
|
"It naturally follows that unless otherwise stated, this training is restricted to the upper body, because that's the part of the body that steroids affect. " Ah, but who has the burden of proof? You. Also, you said that the core-abs is the "key muscle group," which implies that there are other groups that make a difference in baseball. All statements you made assuming that any effect made to the upper body does nothing are irrelevant because you never really proved them to be irrelevant. "Just because it's statistically significant, does not mean it's important enough to make the statistics UNABLE to reflect a player's true natural ability. " We're talking about comparisons. If two guys would have had the exact same batting average, but one guy's batting average went down because he weighed more, and therefore couldn't reach first base as quickly, I win. "I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. " However, your factual phrases do not eliminate steroids as a factor. They only show that it could have been a combination. The guy you cited though so. Why can't you? You have BoP, after all. "If one article says that 2 2=4, and then ALSO says that all non-Caucasian people should be murdered, does that mean I can't cite the factual 2 2=4 part without agreeing with the later opinionated part that non-Caucasian people should be murdered. " It would obviously mean that the narrator is unreliable, and you should get a more reliable source to confirm that 2+2=4. There are plenty out there. "It says in the ESPN source, [3] in the R2 argument. "Of the last dozen seasons. " The article was written in 2005. So, about 1993-2005. That's exactly my time frame. " Your factors don't exclude steroids. They could have all worked together. "Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. .. " "Other factors" does not mean "only factors. " "This is a completely irrelevant argument. .. " Where have you shown that steroids have no effect? You assume that they have no effect, and you have the Burden of Proof, and the BoP alone loses you this debate. "You haven't come close to winning that first contention. You'd have to show that steroids have an effect, and that the effect resulted in a few extra home runs. " Extra home runs? Because guys who use steroids weigh more, they would be slower. Therefore, they would score fewer singles, and perhaps more home-runs. However, the fewer singles would be a significant change in statistics. Even the negative effects mess things up. "You still haven't provided any evidence that it would lead to an increase in home runs. Your whole argument here lacks any basis in fact. " You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. Let's go with the BoP. Which is on you. "Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. .. " In that case, they'd throw change-ups. Why fastballs instead? Because they're fast. It's physics. "Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. " In that case, pitchers would have more strikes. Steroids don't have any effect on a player's reaction time, so the playing field wouldn't be even. It would be lopsided, and all of the statistics would change up or down in some way. "First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. .. " See my evidence locker for why this is incorrect. . http://www.debate.org... "You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. " Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A fast ball bounces off of the bat with more power. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. " Yes, they do. Playing by the rules is considered to be natural ability at using the rules to one's advantage. Breaking the rules is not. "Sorry, but you've just misunderstood your source. The source OUTRIGHT SAYS that a 'statistically significant' difference IS NOT the same as a 'significant' difference. " Yes. It says that any difference is statistically significant so long as it is consistent. That goes my direction, not yours. "You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. " If a guy is weighed down by his steroid use and is called out at first more often, his number of singles is no longer correct. Although, you've never shown anything about the statistics being legitimate in the first place. "1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. " What makes it an opinion? You never established that. "2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. " Actually, that is basically what statistically significant means. Read it out loud. Statistically significant effects have significant effects on statistics. "3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. " You haven't shown that steroids don't have an effect. "4. You have not shown this. " The rest of his step rebuttals seem to count on the above points being rebutted, so. .. "He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. " I could say the same about you, except with the lack of an effect. "Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. " Your arguments don't even exist. "His arguments regarding the even playing field either reflected a lack of understanding of baseball (specifically, his arguments about the fast pitches being easier to hit for home runs). " Not only does this sentence need another clause, but I never said that fastballs are easy to hit. They just fly further. "His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. " My opponent seems to be looking in a mirror. "His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. " All I've needed is a statistically significant source. I don't need it to be important. I need it to be statistically significant. After all, this is a statistical debate. Nowhere have I said that it was actual significance. You've just assumed that it takes actual significance, which it does not. "I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote PRO. " He's forgetting something again. He thinks that by refuting all of my arguments will win him the debate. He is wrong. He may be able to attack my arguments, sure. But after that, we have nothing. He has not affirmed the resolution. He has only tried to stop it from being negated. As the Instigator and PRO, and having said nothing earlier, he has the Burden of Proof.
|
edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000
|
People can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled "Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport," published on cbssports.com: "Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible." Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled "Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.," published on the Huffington Post website: "Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But "no walking required"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf.
|
edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000
|
For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.
|
edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00003-000
|
Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a "game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. " [1]Sport, is a "physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). " [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word "sport. " Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal
|
1997960a-2019-04-18T16:54:30Z-00003-000
|
'Raising the legal age for drinking alcohol to 18+ is no solution.'
|
eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00002-000
|
Extend arguments. I hope that Pro returns to the site, and that my harsh critisisms did not deter her from the debate.
|
abd6ace-2019-04-18T19:16:43Z-00003-000
|
Writer and environmental activist Paul Brooks wrote " In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops" Because I believe that the commodification of the environment is not only morally reprehensible, but a destructive policy I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection. I oppose the resolution for 3 main reasons 1. Global Warming outweighs everything 2. Global warming makes global poverty and famine worse Observation: In Conflict Professor Jonathan Turley reports "Various countries including China made clear that they will continue to put economic development ahead of the environmental, even if global warming threatens a worldwide ecological disaster. Most startling was China"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, told a forum. China has already destroyed its own environmental and may be killing between 500,000 and 750,000 people a year due to environmental violations and pollution. It is now becoming the largest produced of greenhouse gases and its pollution is causing major environmental problems in countries as far away as the United States." Developing countries will have a higher output of greenhouse gas emissions, and thus increase the effects of global warming. Energy infrastructure in developing nations tends to be based on fossil fuels and other polluting agents. Poverty reduction worldwide will require an increase in carbon emitting infrastructure in developing nations. Furthermore power plants and other such greenhouse gas-emitting infrastructure are common areas of work for those living in poverty especially in countries such as the U.S. Contention one: Global Warming outweighs everything, including poverty The condition of global warming caused by an increase in carbon emissions over the past hundred years is possibly one of the most pressing concerns facing humanity. Environmental Scientist, Bill Henderson reports, "The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share." Action on global warming is critical. Unless we prioritize environmental protection their may be no people to lift from poverty left on the earth. Contention two: Global warming makes global poverty and famine worse The economic base of most poor countries is agricultural. However the crops grown by this poor farmers are sensitive to the results of global climate change. Not only does this make the problem of famine in impoverished countries worse but also Global warming will cause further environmental disasters that will have a massive negative effect on those living in poverty as well as everyone else in the world. As Reuters reported in 2005, "Global warming is likely to significantly diminish food production in many countries and greatly increase the number of hungry people, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says. The FAO says in a report that food distribution systems and their infrastructure would be disrupted and that the severest impact would likely be in sub-Saharan African countries. "There is strong evidence that global climate is changing and that the social and economic costs of slowing down global warming and of responding to its impacts will be considerable," the report said. Many scientists fear rising temperatures, blamed mainly on heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels, will melt ice caps, raise sea levels by almost a metre by the end of this century and bring more floods, droughts and storms. Global warming would increase the amount of land classified as being either arid or insufficiently moist in the developing world. In Africa the amount of this type of harsh land could increase by as much as 90 million hectares by 2008, an area nearly four times the size of Britain. Changes in temperature and rainfall as well as an increase in the number of so-called "extreme weather events" such as floods will bring with them potentially devastating effects. The world suffered 600 floods in the past two-and-a-half years, which claimed the lives of about 19,000 people and caused $US25 billion in damages. That excludes December's devastating tsunami in south-east Asia that killed more than 180,000. FAO says scientific studies show that global warming would lead to an 11 per cent decrease in rain-fed land in developing countries and in turn a serious decline in cereal production. "Sixty-five developing countries, representing more than half of the developing world's total population in 1995, will lose about 280 million tons of potential cereal production as a result of climate change," FAO said. The effect of climate change on agriculture could increase the number of people at risk of hunger, particularly in countries already saddled with low economic growth and high malnourishment levels. "In some 40 poor, developing countries, with a combined population of 2 billion... production losses due to climate change may drastically increase the number of undernourished people, severely hindering progress in combating poverty and food insecurity," the report said."
|
35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000
|
In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.
|
d4e75d9a-2019-04-18T12:24:09Z-00002-000
|
i say schools should teach sword fighting because it would be self defense and would help students defend the school if someone broke in while classes were going on
|
b567d7bc-2019-04-18T12:55:55Z-00003-000
|
RebuttalsFirst my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's arguments.1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidThis is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]"The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2]From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on recordArgument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryAntarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3]"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.""Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5]4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesThis is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. "show picture of graph if possible." [6][7]Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources2. https://www.epa.gov...3. http://grist.org...4. http://grist.org...5. http://grist.org...6. http://grist.org...7. http://www.grida.no...
|
80e3ce8f-2019-04-18T15:56:43Z-00007-000
|
Thanks to Romanii for this debate! I will now present my case.DEFINITIONS [1, 2]Democracy - "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." It may also be some combination of both the former and latter forms.Compulsory - "required by a law or rule: mandatory"Vote - "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; esp.: one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office"Justified - "to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable"OBSERVATIONS1. "On balance" implies an analysis of the wieght of the evidence. It is not my job to those that compulsory voting is always beneficial, nor is it my job to show that it would work in every democracy. Merely, it is my job to show that, in general, is is beneficial and justified.2. It is my job to show that compulsory voting (CV) is "justified." This can be done, as shown with my definition, in several ways, as long as I can show a good reason for having CV. The two main way in which this can be done are to show that CV is just or morally right, or to show that is reasonable given the circumstance.3. The resolution demands a discussion of what is best in democracies. Therefore, when analyzing CV, we must ascertain whether CV is beneficial within the context of a democracy--does it promote an effective nation-state, does it promote democratic ideals, does it comport with democratic rights, etc.ARGUMENTSContention One: TurnoutSub-point A: Low turnout is deterimental within a democracy"The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor...even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects." [3] "Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt." [4]The conclusion we can draw is simple, democratic values such as egalitarianism and justice are circumvented when turnout is low. Moreover, democratic government is more likely to address the concerns of all constituent groups if all groups turn out to vote--thus, it makes government more willing to comprehensively and holistically tackle problems, rather than honing in on the issues on an elite few. Finally, I would reiterate the sentiment so aptly expressed by the American Revolutionaries: "No taxation without representation." If certain groups don't or are unable toget out to vote, how can we say they are represented? How can we be a government of the people?Sub-point B: CV solves for low turnout"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [5] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [6]Sub-point C: CV solves for polarization and lack of representativeness"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized...by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [7]Contention Two: ViolenceSub-point A: Stability is necessary for effective governanceI would truly be surprised if Con contested this, but the argument is simple. A state requires relative stability in order to carry out day-to-day functions. Areas ravaged by violence, natural disasters, etc. tend to have fewer amenities and poorer governmental infrastructure. Therefore, stability is beneficial.Sub-point B: CV reduces violence, solving for a major cause of violence."State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society 'in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives'." [3] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives...the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent...Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [4]Contention Three: CitizenshipDemocracy is unique in that places the responsibility of governance in the hands of the people, and, to whom much power is given, much is expected. In this case, we, as the holders of authority, have a responsibility to vote and to make conscientious voting choices. Even if you buy none of my other utilitarian arguments, you can look to this one to vote Pro. "The rights-based defense of mandatory electoral participation starts from the premise that duties and obligations are intimately connected to rights. Voting is a necessary attribute of citizenship; it is a public trust, a moral obligation, a duty of citizenship. Democratic obligations thus follow directly from democratic rights. The obligation to participate in elections can be defended on the grounds of equality inherent in the definition of the democratic choice situation; all members of the community have a duty to contribute to collective decision-making if they are to enjoy its fruits, irrespective of any consequentialist arguments (considered below) as to the impact of such participation. " [4]SOURCES1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - http://dictionary.reference.com...3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 1954 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-25 - http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...6 - Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-57 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920
|
ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000
|
Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or "standard" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of "standard score" which can help interpret how far a child"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. "They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular "cut-line" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to "assessment is powerful for improving teaching" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.
|
d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00001-000
|
Should marijuana become legalized for recreational use? In this debate, I am taking the Pro stance, meaning I support the legalization. 1st round - State your stance. 2nd round - Evidence to support stance. 3rd round - Counter the opponent's stance. 4th round - Closing statement/Final evidence and/or opinion. I will not stand rude or childish responses. I'm looking for a fun, cordial debate between people who can handle the topic. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to debating!
|
91581604-2019-04-18T19:14:10Z-00002-000
|
"I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace." Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. It is because I agree with: Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, in the position that social contracts lead to well-being, that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution, Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Ought: used to express duty or moral obligation The highest value within today's round is well-being. Well-being is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare. Well-being is most important in today's round because it is a main thing the human race strives for, and it can be achieved with the use of a social contract. The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. - "Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday." ~ http://www.lockergnome.com... There are many who have lost jobs and have gone through unnecessary stress due to inappropriate content they posted on their websites. Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. Social networking sites are no longer private. One must be aware of the risks they take while posting anything negative or displeasing on their website. Everything you do on the internet is cached and it may cost you your job and maybe even worse consequences. Soon, there will be no impunity with what you do. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. The benefits of behaving appropriately: •Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. •Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. •It may make a great first impression. The cons of behaving inappropriately: •Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. •Giving a poor first impression. •People may NOT find you appealing. It is obvious that the benefits supersede. Social networking sites can be used for your social benefit. You will often make good first impressions, and be respected. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. I have shown you that professional behavior on social networking sites may induce well being, but the resolution has a word in there that twists everything a lot for my argument. Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. These also can be replaced with should and removal of the infinitive (to); You should behave properly. You should go to sleep. The resolution doesn't say: "Standards of professional behavior ARE to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites." Ought means you are obliged. It is in your BEST INTEREST to behave that way. Do you absolutely have to? No. People can choose to behave properly. It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites, that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately, and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that well-being should be upheld and that Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.
|
18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000
|
Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.
|
18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00001-000
|
Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.
|
25f4afea-2019-04-18T11:58:00Z-00002-000
|
First: I am fine with how gun control is now, we can debate whether or not gun control should be increased or decreased. Second: I believe the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the American population from a tyrannical government. Now that this is out of the way: I say that there is a need in society today to defend yourself from intruders and a tyrannical American Government. I also believe that the battle over gun control is actually gun owners vs non-gun owners. The informed vs. the ill-informed. Let us keep the debate friendly. What I believe I think is the best for society, as will my opponent.
|
5cbe11b4-2019-04-18T17:56:10Z-00004-000
|
Here is your first and fairly simple riddle: Two coins add up to 15 pence and one of them is not a 10p coin. What are the 2 coins?
|
9324770-2019-04-18T19:59:00Z-00000-000
|
The proponent unfortunately did not defend her position, which makes it more difficult for me, and any observers to challenge and refine my/their opinions. I have nothing more to add.
|
9324770-2019-04-18T19:59:00Z-00003-000
|
at first, i had thought that gay marriage was all wrong, however i see it differently now. what if you wish to spend the rest of your life with a person you truely love but however is the same gender? you can't help the fact that you're either a male or female. it's all about commitment that matters.
|
922569a4-2019-04-18T16:45:23Z-00000-000
|
I will give you the fact that those that are home-schooled, and take the standardized test, do fair better. Now let us take a look at those numbers. In 2011 it was estimated that there were 1.7 million home-schooled students. The largest study tested 40,000 home-schooled children (or just over 2%). That's an incredibly small number, and they were all volunteers. That's 2% of home-schooled students against 100% of public school children. Furthermore, estimates put SAT aged home-schooled students at 200,000 but only 5287 home-schooled students sat for the SAT's in 2011. Again, around 2%. I'm more concerned with the other 98% and how their numbers stack up. When you take 2% of a populace ( all volunteers ready and willing mind you) and compare it to 100% of another the numbers will always be skewed. To be clear, I'm not against home-schooling, I'm against it in its current form. I suggest better oversight to ensure quality across board, not just the 2% that they like to tout.
|
d1c59b91-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000
|
Arguments For Legal Euthanasia1. euthanasia is “inevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out.Murder is also inevitable, so should we have that out in the open and regulate it? The obvious answer is no, and which is why inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything.2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.This is repulsive to think we are going to be judging people if they are worth the resources to give them possibly life saving procedures, and there is already evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal. One notable case isBarbara Wagner in Oregon in which an insurance company refused to pay for a drug to help her with her lung cancer, but the company was willing to pay for the drugs for physician assisted suicide [1].3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress.It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanaisa are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way “A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth” [2]. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain [3]. Further, euthanasia doesn’t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain? 4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. it is becoming less of a choice and more coercion; further, in countries where VE is legal the quality Palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim. For example in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal there are problems. Although the Dutch government has attempted to stimulate palliative care at six major medical centres throughout the Netherlands, established more than 100 hospices and provide for training professionals caring for terminally ill patients, many physicians choose the easier option of euthanasia rather than train in palliative care [4]. Further, according to Herbert Hendin, MD, “Data from patient interviews, surveys of families of patients receiving end-of-life care in Oregon, surveys of physicians' experience and data from the few cases where information has been made available suggest the inadequacy of end-of-life care in Oregon” [5]. Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism. They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift” [6]. Critics will be the first to point out that we have a separation of church and state, and they are partially right. In the United States we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge; however, this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it. There are also secular reasons to oppose Euthanasia. 2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine availableThe American Medical Association, along with many other health organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court during the Washington v. Glucksberg case, stating “properly trained health care professionals can effectively meet their patients’ needs for compassionate end-of-life care without acceding to requests for suicide” [7]. Dr. Hendin also shown “Studies show that the less physicians know about palliative care, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; the more they know, the less they favor it”, and “Euthanasia, intended originally for the exceptional case, became an accepted way of dealing with serious or terminal illness in the Netherlands. In the process, palliative care became one of the casualties, while hospice care has lagged behind that of other countries” 3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.. When it comes to normative ethics, there are two schools of thought utilitarianism, and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is “to act in the manner that determines the most positive consequences and the less negative ones” [8]. “The motive behind this pragmatic approach lies in the finding of a disproportionate growing trend of health expenses in the last month of the terminal patients’ life” [8]. This model of ethics makes it ethical to use euthanasia because it saves medical resources, and unethical to keep living and using those medical resources. This re-enforces the idea that legal Euthanasia actually limits choices and coerces people. Since, in this theory, the focus of moral evaluations is based on the consequences of the action towards others, it is impossible to know if you are doing a moral action. If because a patient chooses euthanasia to save medical resources, and now they are able to save a future mass murder from dying then they would have done an immoral action. This makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Further, in this moral theory there is no human rights since any action like murder could be moral if the majority benefited, so this isn’t a moral theory that people would want to follow. The other theory of Kantianism which gives a clearer answer. Kant believed we derive morality from rationality in which he proposed an unwavering moral law called the categorical imperitive [9]. Kant said to determine if an action is moral or not you would have to make that action a universal law that everyone must follow, and if that action caused any contradictions then it is an immoral action. “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law” [9]. This moral theory better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights. 4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused The Hippocratic Oath was made to define the doctor’s proper role and medical ethics. Hippocrates states “the doctor to do whatever is for the benefit of the patient, and to give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest such counsel” [10]. To have legal euthanasia would violate centuries of well established and respected medical ethics. These medical ethics have been carried on by modern medical associations like General Medical Council, and British Medical Association [10]. Without this rule, doctors can abuse their role as a trusted professional. For example, “The government-sanctioned studies suggest an erosion of medical standards in the care of terminally ill patients in the Netherlands when … more than 50% of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, and 25% admit to ending patients' lives without their consent” [5]. Frankly, it is disturbing that any ending patients’ lives without consent is even accepted little alone so wide spread. Also, if doctors suggest euthanasia, they are essentially giving up at their position as trying to help/cure the patient. Sources[1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://www.life.org.nz...[5] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...[6] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[8] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[9] http://www.academia.edu...[10] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...
|
5022c09c-2019-04-18T17:31:45Z-00003-000
|
None of his substantives have any worth to this debate as they are criticisms, essentially, of democracy - the idea of rule by the will of the majority. Whilst my opponent deplores my plans to make politics more 'populist', he fails to mention or even recognise the fact that democracy is inherently populist, and this will form the basis of most of my substantives in this new speech. First, however, I would like to issue some rebuttal. Rebuttal I: "Decision-making by referendum does not guarantee the best or even the right cause of action. "This is true, but nor do elections. People can elect the wrong party in much the same way that they can choose the wrong outcome in a referendum. This is a criticism of allowing everyone a say in politics (which we already have via e-petitions, lobbying, and elections - i. e. democracy), therefore Proposition does not deem it to be a valid criticism of referendums. Rebuttal II: "By changing the constitution. .. "We don't propose to make any legal changes which would require the Government to hold referendums, this House would merely like to see them used more. Forcing the Government to hold a referendum would be wrong. Rebuttal III: "We would be undermining the importance of politics. .. "This side of the House would disagree. We think making politics more populist makes it more relevant to society. The biggest problem faced by politics is the idea that it is seen as out of touch and in general under the present system people elect an official and hear little more from them until they seek re-election 4 or 5 years later. By giving politics a larger presence in citizens' lives, we believe that would say that politics is incredibly important, it is relevant to you and we want to know what you think. In other words, we're in touch, and we care. Rebuttal IV: "Voter turnout is low. This suggests that the electorate at large do not want to be involved in politics. "This is a common view, and I understand why Opposition has cited it. Research at the University of York, however, says that the fall in voter turnout is due to two factors. People feel alienated by the political parties (partly brought on by events such as the MPs' expenses scandal, I grant you), and they also feel that the parties have become too similar to each other and there is no real choice. [1] Therefore, we believe that using referendums will appeal to those who are not currently voting. They are being presented with a clear choice which will lead to a very active decision - and the two possible consequences will be very different - and they will be being consulted by the parties without those parties wanting votes or re-election. Proposition feels that this point is knocked down. Rebuttal V: "How well-informed could they be come polling day? "With the advent of new opportunities presented by the Internet, apps and social media; we feel it would be very possible to run online campaigns regarding these referendums reasonably cheaply which would reach most citizens of the UK (alongside the continued use of Party Political Broadcasts). (This point stemmed from a point about apathy, see above. )Rebuttal VI: "There is no guarantee that that would increase voter turnout. "Opposition is right; we can't guarantee it. We feel that the use of referendums will appeal to those who are not currently voting in elections, however we can't guarantee they will. Proposition feels, however, that Parliament is morally obliged to create avenues of participation for those who have lost faith in the existing ones. Rebuttal VII: "People typically only have their own self-interest at heart. "Again, the same applies for voting. If you look at voting patterns in the UK, they are highly class-based: people vote for parties which offer tax policies (for example) which favour them over others. Of course the same would apply for referendums, but that's democracy. Rebuttal VIII: "They have far more insight into the consequences of policy changes than the average voter. "If we go down this road too far, we end up with voting rights only being given to those of a certain IQ. Just because someone isn't insightful, it doesn't mean that - from a democratic point of view - their opinion is invalid, or should be ignored. People with very little political insight still vote in general elections, stand for Parliament, and even become MPs. Rebuttal IX: "They simply have an overview that the Everyman doesn't possess. "To suggest that the electorate shouldn't be trusted to make a decision is a very dangerous move. I'd like you to clarify what you are implying in your next speech, but my last piece of rebuttal also applies here. Rebuttal X: "The Everyman has neither the time nor the inclination to research and analyse his voting decision. "Again, we believe that political apathy is much lower than our Opposition would have people believe. We think people do care, and our evidence would agree. It is discontent with the voting system which is the problem. And, as previously stated, we believe that in the 21st century it is easier than ever before to quickly and succinctly make the voter aware of the two campaigns. This point is knocked down. Rebuttal XI: "Give the majority what it wants - NO political participation at all. "Oh, so Opposition is socialist after all. Besides this point (do we really want to start debating democracy versus dictatorship? I only have 2,368 characters remaining and we don't have enough rounds), we don't believe that the majority want no participation at all; they just want it in different ways because they've lost faith in elected official. More and more people are protesting, pressure group membership is increasing, and more people than ever are standing for election. Rebuttal XII: "We could well see the death penalty brought back into the UK. "Whilst I agree with you that this would be catastrophic, if the public want it, then politicians are in no place to simply tell the public they're wrong. Politicians serve to enact the will of the public, not the other way round. Summary of RebuttalWe believe that we have knocked over both of Opposition's two substantives, both in their own right but also on the basis that they serve principally to point out potential flaws with democracy. Given that this debate assumes a democratic state, we believe they are not within the bounds of this debate. Substantive III: They resolve differences between parties and parliamentary deadlockIf we look at the example of the 1973 European Community referendum, the referendum was key for making a decision when the parties in Parliament were unsure what to do and could not come to an agreement as to whether or not the UK should be a part of the European Community. Likewise with electoral reform, leading to the referendum on the Alternative Vote in 2011 (although the Proposition would argue that, to give the voters more choice, multiple choices should have been presented to the electorate). When parties are divided on an issue, be it divided against each other, divided within each other or both, we believe that the best thing to do is to allow the public to have the casting vote, as opposed to simply having parliamentary deadlock. For this reason we would advocate the increased use of referendums. Summary of the Third Speech for the PropositionWe have demonstrated the problems with Opposition's arguments. We have shown that Opposition's arguments are more criticisms of democracy, and not of referendums. We have contributed a further substantive in favour of referendums. For all these reasons, we urge you to Vote Pro! Back to Opposition, for their next speech. [1] . http://www.york.ac.uk...
|
e9800d8d-2019-04-18T18:47:58Z-00000-000
|
Not everyone is just moaning about the problem. The parents who are raising the children up right and making sure they don't get into something that is clearing bad for their underdeveloped minds are not just using moaning they are backing up their words, and ask both your own parents and your grandparents and you will see that it works. My opponent has no piont in her claim. I made it perfectly clear in the comment section that I am Pro. However, I wanted to argue on the side of Con. I am using the traditional Con arguments that have been used for a long time.
|
e9800d8d-2019-04-18T18:47:58Z-00003-000
|
I would be certain that more people in the world are not actually bothered by this display , and the people that are just love a good moan!
|
e9800d8d-2019-04-18T18:47:58Z-00007-000
|
Firstly i would like to add to my first opinion i made earlier. Us as people are meat to have a FREE mind , think FREELY without the help of others , so this going on my previous statement and what my opposition has just made it just clarifies at when parents do overly power their children with their thoughts, They are not avaible to think for themselves so therefore it goes FOR my argument that yet again that if parents have to much control your not the person your mean to be.
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 44