args

CON

• CON

  Yes there is nothing better than conversing with someone...

  Show full argument

  CMV: There should be a universal sign language the whole worlds learns in school or by parents.

  Honestly technology is reaching a point where this is irrelevant. Yes there is nothing better than conversing with someone with the same language in real time, but the accuracy of translation apps is only getting better, and only slows down conversation by so much. Think of it this way, is it easier for the whole world to learn a new language, or for a few people to develop coding and applications to help with better translations in real time?

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/lchz9p/cmv_there_should_be_a_universal_sign_language_the/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.89

    universal: 7.41

    conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.12)

    should: 2.05

    conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.91)
• CON

  Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate....

  Show full argument

  Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

  Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. My opponent has provided a very strong argument. I would like to reiterate the following 1) Misery is not quantifiable by numbers or words. The mere fact that there is "gun violence" and "death by firearms" is proof that guns do bring misery to the human race. I find it surprising that my opponent has stated that "why we should believe violence and misery in the US is associated in any degree to the right to keep and bear arms" and also stated that "I don't see the connection between "misery" in the US or any other country and "the right to keep and bear arms". I will once again reiterate that gun violence and death by firearms do result in misery and argue that the statistics on child deaths is proof of such misery. 2) The right to bear arms is not a law and can only be considered a law when trying to claim it as a "birthright". The right to bear arms is only a right, regardless of how my opponent would like to argue the matter. My opponent tries to argue that "the right to bear arms is a basic human right" well I would have to rebut that argument by stating that the right to bear arms was not included in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' and the United States was at the time of signing the strongest power in the world. 3) The right to bear arms is a law that is open to the consensus of the people. At the moment that consensus says that the right should remain in the United States of America. In other countries the consensus is towards creating an environment that is free of arms. It is not unchangeable and nor should it be seen as such. 4) The Orange Revolution was raised as an example of how peaceful civil disobedience can shape governments. If people believe that their government may turn tyrannical and still feel the need to harbor weapons then that is their choice and they can chose to bear arms regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. I would argue that people need to voice their opinion early on and hopefully not get to the stage where they are having armed conflicts with their government (especially in the United States). 5) Restricting arms to the sane is a good idea in theory however in practice there are a multitude of problems. The Virginia Tech Massacre is one such example and is the deadliest single shooting rampage in US history (1). Also the number of people taking their lives is evidence that people that are sane at purchase are experiencing periods of instability. I will finish off by arguing that my opponent did raise a lot of good points in this debate, however I would like people to consider the following. Would there be a need for firearms beyond policing and military use if no other civilians had weapons; if governments were completely transparent; and people pursued a course of civil disobedience every time their rights were undemocratically eroded. I would ask people to consider my points before voting. (1)http://www.washingtonpost.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-All-legally-and-clinically-sane-citizens-should-have-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.87

    universal: 3.54

    premises: 3.23 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.66)

    basic: 3.01

    premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)

    should: 3.32

    conclusion: 1.48 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 1.74 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.37)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.95)
• CON

  But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the...

  Show full argument

  Abortion should remain legal.

  Introduction Ah, pardon me. I did not notice your rule against challenging definitions before. I would, however, like to ask you to provide a modern and reliable source for your claim that the scientific community has not determined when life begins. This is an important aspect of the debate and it is not acceptable to make this claim without proof. My case As dictated by the rules, I will not be presenting any rebuttals in this round. I shall be making only three contentions. 1. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life 2. There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life 3. This moral obligation is of the highest order Throughout this debate round, "unborn" may be used to mean an unborn human at any of the three stages of zygote, embryo or fetus. Contention #1 - The unborn is a human life The standard, biology textbook definition of life is 1) the ability to grow and 2) the ability to reproduce.[1] In other words, if something grows and possesses the ability to reproduce at some point in its life cycle (barring some sort of defect), then it is considered by the scientific community to be alive. By this standard, the unborn can be considered to be a life. But what if we use a more advanced definition such as the one below? Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life. Metabolism Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototroism), and chemotaxis. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[1][2] Once again, the unborn meets all the criteria for life. However, this is somewhat irrelevant. After all, bacteria and blades of grass are also alive, and we feel no moral qualms about killing them. Why, then, is the zygote/embryo/fetus different? Put simply, because it is a human life. By definition, a product of reproduction is of the same kind as its 'parents.'[3] I offer this Merriam-Webster definition of fetus as further proof: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born."[4] Contention #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life Man is a moral agent, a being with free will whose actions have moral import. Because of our freedom we are bound by duty to act morally or, if you prefer, ethically. Morality may be derived from either philosophy or religion. I shall be making a philosophical case for the moral obligation to preserve human life using Kant's three Formulations of the Imperative. The First Formulation of the Imperative "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[5] Clearly we would not want the justified taking of innocent life to become a universal law without contradiction. This would result in chaos, bloodshed and (depending on your interpretation of this First Formulation) the extinction of the human race. The Second Formulation of the Imperative "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[6] The taking of innocent life violates this Formulation because it disregards and devalues the free will of the victim and sees them as an end in themselves. The Third Formulation of the Imperative "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals[7] To explain this Formulation, I quote from an article on deontological ethics by the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics: Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover whether it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let's take, for example, the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and order or plant one's own flowers.[8] The taking of innocent life unarguably carries moral implication on far grander and more devastating scale than the picking of flowers. Contention #3 - This moral obligation is of the highest order As can be evidenced by the Formulations of the Imperative, ignoring this moral obligation results in greater devastation than the violation of any other moral obligation can (including such hypothetical consequences as the extinction of the human race). Clearly, then, it supersedes any other demands upon our free will. Sources 1. http://www2.una.edu... 2. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org... 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-remain-legal./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.85

    universal: 4.78

    premises: 4.07 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.72 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.50)

    basic: 1.51

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.24 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.77)

    should: 3.56

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.91)
• CON

  The World Health Organisation for instance points out...

  Show full argument

  The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

  To answer point by point "In response to my opponents argument- though some forms of Genital alterations on women are legal, all forms of body altering procedures are prohibited to be preformed on minors." Wrong and shown to be incorrect by your own sources. This unevidenced statement which contradicts your own sources and is backed up by no proof adds nothing to your argument due to already having been proven incorrect in the last round. I mean even if you hadn't already disproven your argument this fails to pass a common sense review. You think all body altering procedures are prohibited on minors? You've never seen a 15 year old with earrings? Male Circumcision is not a minor cosmetic procedure, instead, it refers to the removal of a specialized part of the male genitals, the most sensitive part as a matter of fact. The equivalent would be to cut out a girls clitoris, which is illegal, and a blatant violation of bodily autonomy. This is both ignorant and offensive. It is ignorant because cutting off a girl's clitoris would be the equivalent to removing the penis glands (the head of the penis) not the foreskin. The clitoris glans and penis glans are homologous meaning they form from the same embryological precursor [1]. Indeed, due to the two sharing a common purpose, function and design it should seem obvious they are linked. It is offensive because female genital mutliation is objectively far worse than circumcision. Female circumcision can remove the pleasure from sex almost entirely for women for the entirety of their lives [2]. Meanwhile peer reviewed scientific studies have found that when you compare circumcised men to non-circumcised men "Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site." [3]. Female circumcision typically causes a host of health issues including [2] constant pain repeated infections, which can lead to infertility bleeding, cysts and abcesses problems passing urine or incontinence depression, flashbacks and self-harm problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life-threatening for mother and baby Meanwhile Male circumcision gives health benefits. The World Health Organisation for instance points out that "Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [4] There is no negative effects known for circumcision itself, only for medical negligence in performing surgical procedures which is something that applies to every type of surgery and even then is tiny with a peer reviewed scientigic study finding that "benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1" and suggests that "When considered together with ethical and human rights arguments, neonatal circumcision should logically be strongly supported and encouraged as an important evidence-based intervention akin to childhood vaccination". [5] This is based on an extensive review of the literature and studies to date. To compare the two as if they were the same is to misuse and demean the suffering of women who have suffered genital mutilation which in no way comapres to circumcision. If you think male circumcision should be banned then you should argue based on the issues with male circumcision itself, now with inappropriate comparisons. Lastly, I would point out that the freedom to practice religion is enshirned in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights (article 18). Infringing people's religious rights is a violation of one of the most fundamental and basic sets of morality governming all humankind. [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.nhs.uk... [3] https://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.who.int... [5] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [6] http://www.un.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Circumcision-of-minors-without-absolute-medical-necessity-should-be-banned/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.82

    universal: 3.29

    premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.59 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.24)

    basic: 2.72

    premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.47 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.50)

    should: 3.81

    conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 1.76 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.38)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.98)
• CON

  Not only that, but the definition of what a good,...

  Show full argument

  A teacher's pay should be merit-based.

  First of all, I thank my opponent for his thorough response. I'll be addressing arguments in general at first, and then I'll address specific arguments after that. It seems to me that this debate now needs an overview, as my opponent has now offered up a plan from my source (fairtest.org) in order to fix all of the problems I claim are inherent in the prospect of teacher merit pay. First of all, this means that if I can disprove his alternative being viable, I've gained incredibly strong footing in this debate. Furthermore, if I can prove that the inherent harms of merit pay exist no matter the assessment system used, I believe I will have won this debate. I will do so now. 1. The peer evaluation system is not politically, logistically, or ethically viable, or at least not moreso than a standardized testing model. What my opponent doesn't tell you about my source is the reason for its analysis. If you read the entire page I cite, you will find that I cited it because it does a wonderful job of summarizing the problems with universal assessment systems involving standardized tests, which are a cornerstone of US assessment, and probably aren't going away any time soon. What that organization does not address at all is the implementation of the peer evaluation system in any sort of universal sense. That's because not even the most highly qualified educational experts would recommend this. This has been a serious problem for over 5 decades. Why haven't we implemented this yet? We haven't because it isn't a number of important things: a. It isn't universally applicable in any way: keep in mind that my opponent clearly conceded that, in order to pay a teacher based on merit, the measurement of the merit must be universally established. My analogy: if one 5th grade class is on times tables and another is on addition and subtraction, the two classroom teachers should not receive equal pay just because students are showing academic achievement. Clearly, one class is conceptually behind. The peer evaluation system is fraught with bias and subjective opinion. Which teachers will assess? How will the localities be assigned assessment teachers? How will we ensure that all assessors have the same concept of how to meet educational goals? Educational research strongly discourages universal curriculum for the very reason that all students are individuals. They should all end up with the same knowledge at the end, but the students may not apply it in the same ways. Which way is the right way? Standardized tests tried to address this, but are failing miserably. b. It isn't logistically possible: teachers are already incredibly pressed for time, especially with shrinking budgets and school years. Not only that, but the definition of what a good, experienced teacher is varies from state to state, even from district to district. Finding enough teachers who have the time, resources, and proper training and skills to assess millions upon millions of classrooms is unrealistic, and a bureaucratic nightmare. c. It doesn't solve the problem of flawed assessment systems: how will peer evaluating teachers measure academic success? Via grades? GPA? Test scores? Project results? All are still based on flawed systems of measurement. We run into the same problems as before. If a peer assessor is looking for students who are able to score high marks on a given project at the end of a unit of instruction, the teacher, again, can inflate grades or artificially manipulate performance in numerous ways to pass his or her evaluation. This is inherent to merit-based pay. There are always ways to cheat a system, especially one that is so bogged down and bloated as judging teams for each classroom. The ONLY way to stop this behavior is not to base pay on merit. Now, onto the rest of the debate. I'll address my opponent's responses to my arguments: 1. I've disproved my opponents alternative as viable above. I also would like to point out his concession on accountability requiring universal standards, which is key to why his alternative cannot be successful. 2. Corruption is inherent in merit-based pay. When performance affects pay, there will always be individuals who attempt to gain more pay by cheating the given system. The perceived success rate is based on the ability to cheat. My evidence proves that there are myriad ways to inflate academic performance, and that those ways have already been heavily exploited. Furthermore, please highlight my example of state governments manipulating student performance in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. That's huge, because states were not doing this until their educational performance affected school budgets. It is directly analogous to the affect merit pay will have on individual schools and students. 3. The problems of socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic locations will still exist within that utopian plan. These problems are inherent with or without peer evaluation. There is nothing to say that a given peer evaluation team would not be a suburban team coming into a rural school, or an urban team coming into a suburban school, where the learning environment can be completely different. We cannot eliminate human bias from any plan, and we certainly can't expect to solve a couple hundred years of problems with one seemingly simple fix. Even if this system doesn't further entrench the inequities of society within education (which it probably will—statistically, schools are more segregated by specific population than they were prior to Topeka v. Board), the inequities will continue, and my scenario of teachers flocking to places where merit-based pay is far more likely will become a quick reality. And my opponent's initial advocacy: 1. The actual ability of a student is a requirement of testing. That is the accountability I keep talking about. The public will not accept, and should not accept, two classrooms of the same grade with vastly different abilities. How does that serve education? Improvement is only a piece of achievement, as my opponent admits in his initial debate posting. The reason standardized tests are even used was a failed attempt to ensure that accountability. Any solution must include it. 2. While you may think it is easy to implement, two things stand in the way of us accepting this as a possible reality: my above analysis in this post, and the fact that 50 years of research has not led to a peer evaluation implementation for universal student achievement assessment. 3. Well, if the example of sales can't be used to demonstratively prove anything about teaching, I suppose it isn't necessary to the debate. The police officer analogy is much closer to the teaching profession in terms of importance and accountability, which clearly proves my point dexterously. 4. However, the corruption isn't just tied to standardized tests. It's deeper than that. Even the letter grades that my opponent refers to in his initial advocacy can easily be manipulated, as can an observed day of "performance" by students. The system my opponent proposes cannot fix the inherent flaws of merit pay. 5. For the most part, the impacts I list in my case are inherent to merit pay, not inherent to standardized testing. The evidence I cite uses standardized testing scenarios, but the same scenarios are a very plausible reality in any system because any system that is merit-based will invite and encourage (inadvertently, but still encourage) corruption. Thus, I negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/A-teachers-pay-should-be-merit-based./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.82

    universal: 5.47

    premises: 4.57 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.90 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.88)

    should: 3.87

    conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.07)
• CON

  1] c. When dealing with the DP, extra measures should be...

  Show full argument

  The Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

  *Counterarguments* ~Contention 1~ Again, you make the misconception that the death penalty is mainly about economic benefit, or deterrence effect, THOUGH those points could be argued. The main reason why a death penalty is instated is not because it's a "solution" to crime, but because it is justice or deontological you could say. a. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is famously summarized as "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." A crime is a violation of social law, of the society in which the person observes. By committing a murder or another heinous crime, the criminal universalized his action, and thus they lose the right to be members of the society and need to be punished. Kant has two conceptions of crime; private and a social crime. A private crime is like deceiving a person to gain personal goods, while a social crime is like theft or murder. The difference is that social crimes affects society, while private crimes affect a person; though the severity of both are not different. However, for social crimes it is up to society, to government, that this be punished. b. A crime shouldn't be punished on basis of social benefit, THOUGH one could argue, points such as deterrence are still valid. The main point of death penalty however, should lie in moral absolutism: this is the foundation of human rights. If we were to punish people based on societal benefit, then this could justify punishing innocent people if doing such will benefit society. c. In a crude interpretation, you could conceive of this argument as an "eye for an eye". By most accounts this is valid, but do remember the notion of retributive justice; the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. The corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right to humans; life no matter how bad is more preferable to death (Kant explains this by illustrating the example of suicide). By violating this right, your own right is discarded. d. A system of laws that fails to punish criminals is weak, and since laws are what create a society, the society in turn is weak. This is why punishment must be dealt out; it would undermine the moral values to not otherwise. ~Contention 2~ Now deriving from my counterargument in contention 1, it is valid to completely discard this economic notion. 1. For the sake of argument, let's say your statistic are correct. a. Prisoners can and often do kill others in the prison system. b. 70% of criminals released from prison in California come return to the prison for another offense. [1] c. When dealing with the DP, extra measures should be taken to ensure accurate rulings. Remember, my argument from the philosophy of Kant means that arguments from economics are irrelevant. Social benefit isn't the reason for justice. This is the nature of deontological ethics. "Haha, yeah a murderer will never commit a crime again when punished with the death penalty, because he or she is deprived of the life in which crimes can be committed. My opponent appears to be getting back at me for a debate in which I brought up semantics and technicalities and won." -I can't see where my opponent is getting at. This point is valid; murders will almost always be murders. Statistics show that released or escaped murders to kill more, and with he advent of the death penalty, this can be solved. YET again, I do want to stress the importance of my first argument; from Kantian ethics. Social benefit is never part of the case. "A rapist isn't punished with rape. Following that logic, a murderer should not be punished with murder. See how the "eye for an eye" punishment is so profoundly illogical?" -Right to life is a fundamental liberty of all humans. To break it is to jeopardize your own. Rape can be consolidated in other terms. ~Contention 4 (it should actually be 3)~ Unjust usage of the law does not undermine the death penalties principles. You have failed to show how increasing court appointed attorney's salaries is difficult, and how the law being fallible is relevant to the death penalty's validity. Just because we don't have a perfect or a more ideal system of laws does not mean the DP should not be instated. As it stands right now, it is morally correct. ==> Important Note <== If my argument with Kantian ethics still stand, then all my opponent's points should be discarded. This is the crux of my argument, and I encourage my opponent to entail his main concern with it. If it remains to be justified by the end of this debate, then things such as economic benefit aren't relevant, as I have explained in Kantian ethics such things are never part of the case.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Death-Penalty-Should-be-Abolished./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.81

    universal: 2.72

    premises: 2.12 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.59 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.24)

    basic: 2.09

    premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)

    should: 5.00

    conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.91 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.50)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  There are no conclusive facts that more provisions of the...

  Show full argument

  palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

  The defedant caused the death to the will writer, Francis B Palmer. 2. The power and construction of a will should be respected in ever sense. 3. To test a will's basic principle, one should consider that a court has no right of altering, annualling and / or voiding an already existing will upon it's writer's death. 4. There aren't any statues that support that the defendant should be denied any funds from the will because of his past criminal acts. 5. To accept such facts mentioned about the defedant criminal actions is to expand the statues that makes this particular case expost factor. 6. There are no conclusive facts that more provisions of the will were ever going to take place before the testor death. 7. No will shall ever be alter, revoked, as the court main priority is this case. 8. Therefore, should the court decide take away money that belong to the defendant that belong to the defendant, the court would be making a new will or altering one. Non-controversial: 1. A valid will should always remain as it is unless a law or a statue to be otherwise. 2. The will of Frances B. Palmer is said to include his grandson as a heir to a part of his estate. 3. Therefore, defandant Palmer should have the right to funds in accordance with the will. Contoversial: The court does not have the right nor the power to rewrite or alter an existing will.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/palmer-should-not-receive-the-inheritance-from-the-will./3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.79

    universal: 0.46

    sourceText: 0.46 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.96)

    sum: 4.13 (product 3.71, product 0.42)

    sum: 3.39 (product 0.90, product 2.39, product 0.10)

    basic: 4.13

    premises: 3.71 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.42 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.34)

    should: 5.20

    conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 2.39 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.87)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  2: "Crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism are such...

  Show full argument

  Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine

  Much thanks to Cerebral_Narcissist for implementing this death penalty debate with a twist. The resolution in this debate is not the most clear but I will avoid the obvious semantic argument of misinterpreting my opponent's position as advocating that violent criminals should be consumed as a prescription medication. It would be helpful to have a clearer definition of "serious offences". The examples given include murder, rape and terrorism but it is unclear if these are the only crimes that my opponent advocates this penalty for, or exactly where he draws the line. I would personally include burglary, large scale fraud and arson as "serious offences" but I'm not sure if my opponent recommends the death penalty for these crimes. My opponent is arguing two distinct issues: 1. The death penalty should exist as punishment for "the most serious offences" (although the specific offences are not clearly defined.) 2. Criminals facing the death penalty should be experimented on and have their organs harvested for the sake of medical science. As the second case can not apply without the first, it is on the very existence of the death penalty that my arguments will focus, rather than the specific fate of those convicted, although I will examine the second issue as it arises. I will address my opponent's arguments before presenting my own. ---- 1:"Rights carry obligations. By committing such heinous offences the criminal should forfeit all rights." It is difficult to respond appropriately to this point without having a clear idea of what "rights" my opponent refers to. It seems that he accepts that some rights exists and his earlier use of the phrase "human rights" suggests that he may be referring to the rights set out in the UDHR. http://en.wikipedia.org... The whole point of 'universal' human rights is that they are universal and apply to all, without exception. To forfeit one's human rights is to forfeit one's humanity and I'm sure that Pro is not suggesting that people transform into another species when they commit terrible crimes. The most basic and fundamental of all rights is the right to life, execution clearly violates this. I have yet to hear of a Universal Declaration of Human Obligations. ---- 2: "Crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism are such terrible crimes that the criminal is unlikely ever to be 'rehabilitated' and should never be freed to endanger society." This is a baseless opinion presented with no evidence whatsoever. Many offenders, even those convicted of the most horrific crimes have been successfully rehabilitated. http://www.legaled.com... http://www.insideprison.com... Consider the hypothetical example of a woman who has been raped. The criminal justice system lets her down, the case is thrown out of court and her attacker walks free. She then plots and murders him. Is it fair to execute this woman? Is there not a good chance that she can be rehabilitated? Even if someone could not be rehabilitated at all then they don't necessarily need to ever be set free but this connects with the next point. ---- 3: "Permanent incarceration is a drain on the resources of the State and it is amoral to expect the taxpayer to support such people." It is a well documented fact that the death penalty is drastically more expensive than the alternative option of life imprisonment. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://answers.yahoo.com... "Whilst imprisoned there is always the chance that the prisoner may harm prison staff or escape back into society." Escape is extremely rare. Much,much rarer than wrongful conviction. Escape from maximum security prison is almost unheard of. Almost all escapes occur during work release or outdoor programmes and almost all escapees are recaptured straight away. http://www.dc.state.fl.us... Prison guards are adequately trained, equipped, resourced, paid and mean to defend themselves and other staff. ---- 4: "Simple execution fails to give anything back to society." Agreed. Complicated execution is not much better however. Linking back to the last point, life in prison with forced or voluntary labour can also be very productive and make substantial contributions to society. http://berkeley.edu... ---- 5. "Medical testing on animals raises ethical concerns" Agreed. "people are more concerned with the well being of an average rabbit than they are of a rapist." I am thoroughly unconvinced by this assertion. My opponent will need to back this up. I don't think the majority of people think animals have equivalent rights to humans. http://www.pulpless.com... ---- 6: "Medical testing on animals is of limited scientific value." This is true in the sense that there is a limit on how valuable any scientific endeavour is and of course the fact that there are existing ethical limitations on their treatment but there is a great deal of value in animal testing, particularly on animals with DNA patterns very similar to our own. "Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way" http://en.wikipedia.org... ---- 7: "The testing of new drugs or procedures on patients or paid volunteers is unethical, why should normal members of society be used as guinea pigs when we have a surplus of unproductive and worthless criminals?" It is with this point that the inconsistency of Pro's human rights argument becomes most exposed. If it is unethical to experiment on a paid volunteer as my opponent claims it is, then this is actually infringing on that individual's liberty. How can voluntary experimentation be unethical but forcing it on the unwilling be perfectly acceptable. Many criminals, including some murderers are perfectly 'normal' people. As noted in my responses to previous points, criminals can make productive and worthwhile contributions to society. Dehumanising them achieves nothing. ________ After addressing my opponent's points I have limited space with which to present my own arguments. I reserve the right to add new ones in the next round. 1. The risk of wrongful conviction. With the application of the death penalty it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed. Such an act by the state illegitimises the entire justice system and is morally abhorrent. For examples of such cases see these links: http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com... http://www.abanet.org... There is currently huge controversy in Texas over the execution of a man five years ago where forensic evidence is now found to be at fault. http://www.kwtx.com... ----- 2. Moral hypocrisy. The first example of a "serious offence" that my opponent offers is murder so let us focus for a moment on murder. Murder is a legal term but it is also a moral one that covers all kinds of intentional killing. http://en.wiktionary.org... A state that imposes the death penalty is claiming to condemn murder while carrying it out. Unless one believes that two wrongs make a right execution can not be justified. ---- 3. The Brutalisation effect. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that rather than acting as a deterrent, state execution can actually cause an increase in the homicide rate. http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu... http://www.prisonactivist.org... ---- Out of space, so I'll hand over to my opponent. Thanks.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Those-Convicted-of-Serious-Offences-should-be-used-for-Medicine/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.78

    universal: 4.08

    premises: 3.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.36)

    basic: 1.70

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.43 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.36)

    should: 4.00

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.53 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.98)
• CON

  Government's reason to incentivize marriage Firstly, I...

  Show full argument

  The government should recognize same-Sex marriages

  I thank my opponent for proposing this debate, and I hope we both can understand more about this important topic. 1. Government's reason to incentivize marriage Firstly, I would like to say the true reason the government incentives marriage is because it a benefit to children who are a part of these marriages. Children of intact families are better off than other family structures including divorced, single parent, step families, and more [1]. 2. Marriage Public or Private My opponent claims that the state should not be involved in personal endeavors such as marriage. This is a major problem for two reasons. One, marriage isn't just a personal endeavor. Marriage serves as the basic social unit of a healthy society. The effects of marriage are numerous including better mental/physical health, stronger economically, children are better off, crime is reduced [2]. Also, you can be married without the government approval of sex partners, and two homosexuals can marry each other and commit to each other for life, but they will not get recognition in most states. Two, by saying that marriage is a personal endeavor it makes the government get out of marriage all together, in which case the government would not recognize any marriages including same-sex ones. 3. Role of the Government My opponent claims that it is not the job of the U.S. Government to ensure the prevention of any hazardous disease which might be spread through sexual endeavor. However, it is the job to promote the general welfare which includes trying to prevent disease and promoting health. Which is why we have the CDC who's mission is "to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same" [3]. Notice, how it mentions diseases at home. 4. Civil Rights There are two problems about sexual preference being a civil right like women's suffrage. One, comparing women's suffrage to Same-Sex marriage is a poor comparison. Arguments against women's suffrage included that it would cause divisions in families, Women already have influence due to influence over men, and women who take proper care of the house hold don't have time for politics [4]. These arguments are completely different than arguments defending traditional marriage. Two, Sexual Preference does not meet the requirements for civil rights. The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" [5]. It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools/public areas. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money [6]. So, there is no economic disadvantage. Third, sexuality is not immutable. There have been many people who have changed orientation [7]. There wasn't a former woman, without surgery, so sexual preference doesn't not meet this criteria either. Concluding, sexual preference is not a civil right. 5. Marriage is more than love "Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [8]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [8] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [8] The procreative argument was held up in many courts [9][14] such as Baker v. Nelson [10], Jones v. Hallahan [11], Singer v. Hara [12], Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [13]. Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love. 6. Marriage Historically "Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are: 1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle; 2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible: 3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible; 4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and 5. Providing men with a stake in family and society." [8] The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 [15]. No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" [8]. 7. The Slippery Slope If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade. [16] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [17] "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?" [18]. There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name" [19] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [19]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage. Sources [1] http://www.familystructurestudies.com... [2] http://www.foryourmarriage.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.slate.com... [5] http://www.lc.org... [6] http://www.leagle.com... [7] http://www.voices-of-change.org... [8] http://www.scribd.com... [9] http://seattletimes.com... [10] http://gaymarriage.procon.org... [11] http://www.leagle.com... [12] http://www.leagle.com... [13] http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov... [14] http://www.frcblog.com... [15] http://www.bbc.com... [16] http://www.gallup.com... [17] http://www.nomblog.com... [18] http://downloads.frc.org... [19] http://www.brusselsjournal.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-government-should-recognize-same-Sex-marriages/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.71

    universal: 4.08

    premises: 3.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.36)

    basic: 1.63

    premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.14)

    should: 4.00

    conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.53 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.05)
• CON

  3) Incon. ... Over to my opponent!

  Show full argument

  Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

  1) Main Argument Re -I never contested the legitimacy that not registering a gun is always illegal. I am well aware that not all guns must be registered, but that's not the question today we are suppose to be facing. The question is --hypothetically speaking -- if the US senate were to make universal background checks today it would not have an effect on crime. My BOP is to show it would prevent crime instead. Indeed, the main issue here then is what should the law ought to be? And I showed through the examples of Canada, Findland, Switzerland, and Australia that statistically speaking the results overwhelmingly favor background checks and heavy gun regulation to prevention of crime. -Secondly, it is enforceable, the problem is the NRA striking down such bills in which enable the law enforcers to uphold the law. For instance, http://www.bloomberg.com...; This bill would have regulated the private transactions between buyer and seller, espescially in the loop-holes of the law, so places like the internet would have had to adhere to the same regulations of reporting like any other gun salesman. Sounds equitible no? Well, looks like only business are subjected to giving background checks, meaning that a loophole is in place, and is the only reason why the law does not work. In fact, the Colombine shooters did the same thing as previously noted. http://thinkprogress.org... 80% of guns used in crimes are done through private sales such as person to person rather than business to person, because that's the only way criminals can get their guns. If the law ought to regulate that, crime would certainly decrease, and the studies I used from Harvard health clearly show this data is solid as well. 2) Senarios Re: - Even if assuming those guns are not registered, all guns manufactured in the US do have a serial number, and the data is easy to obtain via a database when looking up the serial number. Why can we not do this with purchasers of weapons as well? The info often gives the manufacturer, and the seller, from there the seller may identify who the buyer is. This does not require a registry, though a registry would make this process far easier and a lot more cheaper. 3) Incon. vs Saftey Re - I never asked for the law to create a morality, only to regulate the consuming of that in which can be fatal to one's self and/or to others. And while I agree that laws need an enforcement mechanism, that mechanism was stopped by --once again the NRA -- from allowing that to happen in the first place. One example is the gun segment on the Jon Stewart Daily Show in which showed a leader from the NRA going aginst the Brady Bill as "unconstitutional" even though it has been shown to prevent suicides, and delay shootings. Furthermore, if my opponent is correct and those criminals simply have no fear, this is not an argument for more gun freedom, but rather less. If criminals do not fear anything, then why fear a gun? That would create more crime not less, as the lack of fear makes perfectly good citizens culpible for man-slaughter upon shooting a criminal. 4) Stats Re -Which is why I noted that a strong correlation exists with increase gun control and less crime. However as a matter of fact, the Harvard Studies I used were done with cross-sectional data, showing a distinct long-term pattern for more gun control within a controlled experiement as a result http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Indeed, the stats seem to imply that an indirect systemic causation is in place and in favor of more gun regulation. 5) What About Other Countries Re - ....Sir, apples are comparable to oranges! They're both fruit, round, warm in colors, ... Mexico does NOT have full gun regulation, actually it's a constitutional right to all, and again with how bad their laws are you've proven my point http://en.wikipedia.org... Same as Brazil, heavy gun regulation is a new thing just coming in http://en.wikipedia.org... clearly on this small amount of data (5 years) it would be a hasty conclusion to decide that gun control has failed Brazil, we need at least 10 -15 years to see a long-term trend in Gun regulation's success or failures. Even then the results of Brazil is also in favor of my argument, as Brazil is one of the largest arms dealers in the world, earlier studies I posted clearly showed more guns equates to more crimes. Furthermore, it is applicable, Canada, and Swtizerland are both incredibly differing countries. Yet they both had the same results on gun regulations, same as Findland and Australia. This idea that somehow the US is the only exception is outright wrong. The fact of the matter is, is that gun regulation simply works. It knows no differing countries! Background checks show that preventing everyone from having a gun decreases crime. 6) Self -Defence - No it does not. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Guns are used more often to intimidate than that for self-defence, and are only used in cases of escallating arguments more commonly. Which is still socially undesireable. Guns do not deter crime. They escallate them. - Furthermore, if my opponent conceeds to my point about the second amendment being violated due to background checks, then legally, there is no reason for my opponent to oppose background checks. He indirectly conceeds to the fact that it's not an inconviencne to gun owners as well, because nothing of these checks is harmful to the person, they're justa precaution. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... -And it's not that simple, State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759,769 (Md. 1984) is an example of a man being charged with involuntary manslaughter because he incorrectly thought he had the right to kill someone, but that use of force was unreasonable, but what exactly is reasonable the courts never actually define, making it difficult to tell. 7) Home Run Indeed I think we should, as Somalia isn't the only country with this issue, South Africa also has this problem of people arming themselves, which escallates the issue not defuses it! http://www.guardian.co.uk...; This is also an issue in Afghanistan, where purchasing an AK-47 goes for US $150 Again, a strong correlation to gun ownership follows with higher amounts of crime, likewise the opposite is true as well, that less guns = less crimes. Thank you! Over to my opponent!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Background-Checks-as-recently-proposed-in-the-US-Senate-would-not-mitigate-crime/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 9.69

    universal: 8.58

    conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.37)

    should: 0.89

    premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.88)