Any source
Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    At this point it is prudent to begin to outline...

    Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage

    Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage. Burdens: Under the context of standard debate procedure the Pro holds the burden of proof, and upon upholding that burden the con holds the burden of rejoinder, and, if they offer a counter-solution, the subsequent burden of proof. Framework: For the context of this debate, the issue will be argued in a large context because of all the different points of view associated with the topic. Cases should be structured with a value and with supporting contentions or points of evidence. Round 1: Acceptance, Overview of arguments that will be used 2: Ethical/Moral Implications of Gay Marriage 3: Societal/Political viewpoints towards gay marriage 4: Refutation of opponents arguments and propping up of your own 5: Concluding Statements hitting only already covered arguments, any new arguments made in this section will be considered abuse and should be voted against. At this point it is prudent to begin to outline arguments: First off, some standard definitions: Federal Government: Individuals on a federal level that set up politics in a country (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition) Legalize: To Make legal or lawful; to confirm or validate what was before void or unlawful; to add the sanction and authority of law to that which before was without or against law (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition) Gay: Homosexual (Common Knowledge) DISPUTED TERM: Marriage: Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incum- bent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.(Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition) Now outlining arguments on two main areas: First: Ethical/Moral Implications of Gay Marriage Value: For this debate I will be upholding the value of nihilism. Nihilism as defined by Merriam-Webster as: a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; and, b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths Voting Criterion: To uphold the value of nihilism I will be using the secondary voting criterion of Pragmatism. Defined by Merriam-Webster as: a practical approach to problems and affairs. To give my opponent proper time to prepare argumentation I will outline my logical flow of argumentation: 1. Establish that many of the barriers to gay marriage are essentially meaningless in any case: a. Moral Values - Disproved through subjectivism and relativism as a basis for establishing a nihilistic argumentation viewpoint; utilize concepts of pragmatism to support that it is impractical to try to formulate a universal moral standard. b. Definition of Marriage - Languages are essentially an invention of mankind made to fit the circumstances under which the words were created; for example, the Inuit have numerous words for snow, which people in more tropical climates do not require. Languages can die and be born and are hardly a universal standard for defining what a civil union (the revised, proposed definition of marriage) really is. c. Religious - return to argument about true meaning of civil union, remind audience that "marriage" was not even existent upon the writing of the bible. Further refute by returning to value of nihilism and referencing the unreliability of faith in establishing lawful societies - as last resort call upon separation of church and state in this democratic, and NOT theocratic, society. 2. Upon establishing canvas devoid of previous moral expectation, establish argument parameter that since typical societal values are meaningless in any case and thus gay marriage should pass simply because it would be more pragmatic to focus on issues that are more prudent to the hegemony of our nation in any case. 3. Clarify arguments of pragmatism and nihilism as the basis for a philosophical understanding of why the passing of gay marriage is a non-issue and not even worth the financial and mental exertion required for a true congressional discussion of such an esoteric topic. Round 2: Societal/Political Issues associated with gay marriage Value: Pragmatism (Same Definition as in first stage of argumentation) Voting Criterion: Manifest Humanism Humanism: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason (Merriam-Webster) Manifest: The belief that something is inherently obvious and predetermined(Paraphrased from Merriam-Webster) Contentions/Flow of Argumentation 1. Establish the practicality of passing gay marriage as a necessary part of the advancement of mankind and even of our nation. a. The concept of civil union is ultimately an inherent right for human beings. Rather than focusing on "true love" the wishy-wash aspect of this argument must be thrust aside in the pure basic concepts of the "Social Contract" b. While paper and passion are used on this topic the nation is billions of dollars in debt and there are rampant issues in foreign policy and domestic. The fact that the United States Federal Government is occupied by arguing a topic that really is inconsequential in the grand historical scheme of human and societal advancement, it is impractical to argue the unprovable basis that Homosexual Civil Unions are not as legitimate as Heterosexual Civil Unions. c. To advance society, these issues either need to be forgotten or resolved. If mankind is to achieve its destiny of superiority through logical reasoning than issues such as Gay Marriage need to be forgotten or resolved; since the homosexual population of the nation will refuse to concede any points in regards to the legitimacy of their civil union the only logical end to this issue is to pass gay marriage and, in layman's terms, "move on with our lives". 2. Society's Advancement through Legalizing gay Marriage a. The United States has the unique opportunity to be a leader on a social issue rather than a follower i. The United States has earned significant ridicule from its peers on refusing to budge on social issues in its past. For a nation that makes its money on the slogan "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" it is hypocritical and illogical to bar everyone from having the freedom to marry. ii. In the past the United States has made the mistake of being the last one in the pack of first world nations to legalize various societal expectations of a civil society. Some examples of this include being the last cultured, industrial nation in the world to end slavery, one of the last to legalize the rights of women to vote, women to own property and general, basic rights outlined in the Constitution for White Males, and cross-applying those same basic rights over to African-Americans. b. By being a forerunner on this issue the United States will set the precedent for other nations to resolve their debate on gay marriage and thus be in a favorable position to move on to other issues that are more integral to the advancement of society. 3. After resolving these non-issues it is probable that Domestic policies will be more focused to issues such as Foreign negotiation, Economic Growth and towards a sustainable and favorable standard of living a. POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE: International Cooperation This is the shell of my argumentation. If anyone is willing to coherently and intelligently argue this issue in the context of logical reasoning and without the use of pathetic fallacies such as Ad Hominem I look forward to discussing the philosophical, societal and moral precedents of gay marriage as well as coming up with a creative solution to one of the most irrational things to be arguing about in the modern world.

  • PRO

    There is a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity.

    Terrorists should be subject to the Geneva Conventions

    There is a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/3379-terrorists-should-be-subject-to-the-geneva-conventions/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.51
      universal: 0.53
      sourceText: 0.53 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.11)
      sum: 6.17 (product 5.64, product 0.52)
      sum: 1.00 (product 0.90, product 0.10)
      basic: 6.17
      premises: 5.64 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 0.52 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.65)
      should: 2.81
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.12)
  • PRO

    The moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity,...

    That Terrorists Should Be Subject to the Geneva Conventions

    The moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity, which the Geneva Convention embodies, must be retained

  • PRO

    Australia, 3. ... Vote Pro Social Democracy and the...

    America should become a Social Democracy

    Contention 1: Freedom For starters, if America were to become a Social Democracy, our civil liberties will be preserved. We also, would hopefully have the additonal civil liberties of legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, on economic issues, my opponent and I are actually arguing for two different types of freedom. He argues for unfettered Capitalism, a more laissez faire economy. Now while this does guarantee more property rights for the wealthy and the most privileged, I would argue that this means more exploitation, and less freedom for the common people. Before America even did have a welfare or a regulatory state, we were more laissez faire. Sure, business had more freedom. More freedom to contaminate our water supply, exploit child laborers, suppress unions, etc. Social Democracy makes it harder to exploit. By making people free from want, Social Democracies allow people to reach for their aspirations, while free market Capitalism creates conditions which makes social mobility more difficult. Thomas Paine recognized this, which was why he wanted us to do many things which would now be components of a Social Democracy. Contention 2: Money and Happiness First, I'll address the Greek point. My opponent brought up the fact that Greece has higher tax rates but neglected to tell you that there fiscal mess was caused by corruption which allowed rich Greeks not to pay taxes. Next, The fact of the matter is, that Canada and Denmark, and all of the other countries we're debating about, are more socialist than the U.S. "The government took small steps in 2012 to cut back on welfare state benefits and costs." Small steps. Incremental tinkering does not change the fact that Denmark still has a far stronger welfare state than we do. My point on flexicurity is that even when the Danes were reducing their regulations, they also were beefing up their welfare state. Denmark still has a strong welfare state, and high taxes. It also has more social mobility. Again, Denmark and Canada both have Universal Healthcare. New Zealand does too. My opponent notes that New Zealand has a mixed system. This means that people have the option of private care, but the government picks up the slack giving healthcare coverage to everyone who cannot afford private care. "The burden for the core of the healthcare system rests with government expenditure (approx. 77%)." http://en.wikipedia.org... Note that this was backed with a citation which links to the World Health Organization. So, not only is there universal healthcare in New Zealand, but the vast majority of New Zealanders get their healthcare from the government. New Zealand may not have an extremely progressive tax code, but it stil does have more universal benefits than the U.S. New Zealand has government housing and universal healthcare. The point still stands. Again, all the countries ahead of us in social mobility: 1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All of these countries are at least slightly more socialist than the U.S.. all of these countries have universal health care. The countries ahead of us in happiness are: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA My opponent said Norway, New Zealand, Canada, and Denmark aren't really Social Democracies. I pointed out that all of these countries are at leas more socialist than the U.S. Furthermore, that still leaves 6 countries which are ahead of us, 6 countries which, at the very least have universal healthcare. Clearly, countries that are more socially democratic have people who are more socially mobile, and people who are happier. Sweden My opponent notes economic growth in Sweden from the period 1870-1970. He omits the fact that this was the period when Sweden became a Social Democracy! By the 1930s, many people were praising Swedish Social Democracy for becoming the "middle way" between communist command economies and free market economies. When comparing average income between Sweden and the U.S., my opponent is comparing apples and oranges. We simply have the largest economy in the world. Even when wealth isn't distributed fairly, the average American does worse than the average Swede. Curiously, Swedish wealth is distributed so fairly, that even though they have a much smaller economy, lower income Swedes, all the way up to the 45 percentile, make more than their American counterparts. http://super-economy.blogspot.com... We have more GDP per Capita than Sweden, which means that if our wealth is more evenly distributed, the standard of living of lower and middle income Americans (even those who currently are better off than Swedes) would go up. The fact of the matter is that when wealth is more evenly distributed, there is greater consumption to match productivity. My opponent never addressed the consumption point. He did try to paint a rosy picture of American income inequality with the whole Smith vs. Jones comparison. However, the middle class has been shrinking, and experiencing hardship. In fact, middle class Americans have just gone through their worst decade in a long time. The middle class has it's lowest share of the national income that it's had at any time since WWII. http://www.bostonglobe.com... Looking at how our income, rather than how our wealth, is distributed makes things seem more egalitarian than they trully are. The reality is that the bottom 80% of Americans have 6-7% of the nation's wealth. http://www.currydemocrats.org... Furthermore, while productivity has gone up by 46%. Median income per household has only gone up 15%. The other 31% of growth due to greater productivity went to the rich. This means that wealth that would have gone to the average American flowed upwards to the top 1%. Not only is this unfair to the people achieved greater productivity, but this is bad for the economy. When productivity goes up 46%, there are 46% more goods and services on the market. When 31% of the resulting wealth goes to the top, most of that money will go to bank accounts. Again, there's the car analogy. By the way, Henry Ford paid his workers well precisely because he realized that they would buy his cars. This, in a nutshell, is why redistributing wealth will help the economy. The pie should be sliced more evenly in order to insure that the pie can grow at a stable rate. On the recession point, I cited Paul Krugma, a Nobel Prize winning economist. My opponent asserted that Krugman was wrong about everything. In order to back this assertion, he cited Reisman, an economist who never won a nobel prize. The truth is that we were both playing a game of cherry picking an economist who backed our views, so I guess that point was a draw. (Although Krugman has the edge because again, he did win a nobel prize.) Contention 1: I've shown that Social Democracy preserves civil liberties, while also guaranteeing people freedom from want. I've also impacted the importance of this freedom. My opponent argued that Capitalism insures property rights for the rich. Granted, but it also causes more exploitation and thus takes away freedom from common folks. Contention 2: I've shown that by limiting inequality, social democracy is good for the economy. Again, the rich guy won't buy 400 cars. My opponent also demonstrated this by praising Denmark and Canada, while praising Sweden from 1870-1970, the years Sweden became a Social Democracy. Contention 3: I've shown that the 9 happiest countries in the world are all at least more socialist than we are. I've won all 3 of my contentions. Vote Pro Social Democracy and the resulting financial security makes society more democratic, free, happy, and prosperous.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/America-should-become-a-Social-Democracy/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.49
      universal: 5.88
      premises: 4.99 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.20)
      sourceText: 0.89 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.87)
      should: 3.27
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.83)
  • PRO

    Organizations independent of the law also take...

    If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

    Dovewing5, with no offense directed toward you, this is where I answer that question. My claim at the beginning of this debate was: If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better. Dovewing5 exlaimed: "In my opinion, this implies that anyone who does not do this is not deserving of a kind, just world to call home." Inference: Is this what Juan_Pablo means? My answer is brazen and honest: Yes! That's exactly what I mean. If a person does not ACTIVELY do things to make the world better, he shouldn't expect to live in a good world. This statement is very logical and answers itself. People that don't go out of their way to make the world better, to push for fairness, justice, universal healthcare and education, people that don't contribute to acts of charity, who aren't neighborly and compassionate, who don't promote peace and concern for the Earth SHOULD NOT expect to live in a kind, fair, generous world! Their actions and attitudes are promoting a world that cannot establish these things, that cannot possibly make them universal, either in their own regions or abroad. And in a very real sense, they don't deserve a kind, just world to call home. What are they doing to establish such a world? Now, I'm not saying that such people should be punished for such behavior and attitudes (not unless they break the law, which is one device society can use to attempt to rectify an offender), but these people aren't making the world a better experience for everyone, so they shouldn't expect a better world in return! As I expressed in ROUND 1, Creating a great world . . . requires serious effort. It requires effort. Those that aren't willing to put in that effort simply shouldn't expect it, and when some great injustice happens to them, they need to ask themselves "how did this happen?" Even others who do try to establish such a world, and who suffer injustice, do so because there are individuals who aren't trying to make the world better. This demonstrates the universal extent of this problem. Now, there are people who are trying to make the world a better place for everyone who lives on it, and there are several devices that such people and the community already use to maintain peace and order. Chiefly, civil, state, and federal law come to mind - as does law enforcement - to deal with individuals that break public laws. Prisons and other rehabilitative methods are used to rehabilitate inmates or seperate them from the community. It's harsh, but it shows you that society already recognizes the problem that certain behavior and attitudes inflict on the public tranquility and well-being of civic life. Organizations independent of the law also take retributive actions on those that break rules of fairness and order, because it can lead to increased public depravity: athletes that take performance-enhancing drugs are punished because it rewards cheating, as are university students who cheat on exams, etc. As you state, there is a level of ingrained behavior in all of us that [now I'm adding] we have to control. Things like marriage infidelity, lying, promiscuity, illegal drug use - even something as simple as speeding in traffic - all have to be clamped down because they have an adverse effect on public mores and public health. Again, each of us has to put in a serious effort. A good world isn't automatic (though, strangely, some people seem to believe it is). So if a person does not make the world kind, just with actions, should he not expect to live in a kind, just world? The answer is obvious: No! He doesn't deserve to live a kind, just world to call home because he isn't estabishing such a world with his actions.

  • PRO

    Why is because life means the sequence of physical and...

    The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system

    When I said bankrupt earlier that was wrong, but what is true that is $1,233 for the ER or $800 for an abortion is too expensive. You see in Canadian they universal health care and yes people can abuse the system but EVERY health care plan can be abused. Also, it is a right of a citizen to life. Why is because life means the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual. Let me point out a word here PHYSICAL. PHYSICAL means relating to the body. To keep good PHYSICAL health you need to HAVE healthcare. So to sum up you need health care to take care of your physical body, which is a part of life. But with the high prices of medical treatments, many Americans can't afford it. So with no money, you can't keep your body in good health, which is a part of life. Also, Americans don't what universal health care because of the miss information going around about it. I believe that if everyone knew what really would happen then more people would want it. Thank you for your points before this has been an interesting debate. I have learned a lot about debating tips since I'm only in 7th grade

  • PRO

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we...

    Terrorists should be treated as prisoners of war

    Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level o…

    • https://debatewise.org/3011-terrorists-should-be-treated-as-prisoners-of-war/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.39
      universal: 0.58
      sourceText: 0.58 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.22)
      sum: 5.99 (product 5.45, product 0.55)
      sum: 1.00 (product 0.90, product 0.10)
      basic: 5.99
      premises: 5.45 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.58)
      sourceText: 0.55 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      should: 2.81
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.09)
  • PRO

    The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols,...

    There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms

    1: all "small arms", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....

  • PRO

    Thanks to my opponent for the bible argument…The...

    Gay Marriage should be legalized.

    I'm just going to make a few quick notes first. Apparently my opponent was not down with a clarification round. Oh well. --> The "real" definition of marriage… Well, seeing as you didn't cite your source I question the validity of it. I provided two separate sources and will operate off of the recent one. So I will say that your definition is in actuality an opinion and therefore not a valid source. --> Thanks to my opponent for the bible argument…The resolution doesn't dictate that gay marriage should not be legalized due to the biblical argument behind it, but I will operate off of it if need be. I am not very familiar with the bible but that does not allow me to be biblically ignorant in this debate. However, I will state it as I've stated before. When elected officials take the oath of office, they place their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, not the other way around. Under the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny anyone any rights on any basis. [6] --> I will also go into the utter ignorance that is the "gay's shouldn't even be allowed to adopt. Because that adopted kid was formed by a man and a women, let's not corrupt its mind to be gay." Alright. Well, I'm going to break this down, or attempt to without getting my own feelings involved. I notice that my opponent is against abortion… Let me ask you, where do you suggest we put the children that are put for adoption? Orphanages are becoming rapidly overpopulated, if two women or two men can provide a great home for a child it --> Thanks to my opponent for the bible argument…The resolution doesn't dictate that gay marriage should not be legalized due to the biblical argument behind it, but I will operate off of it if need be. I am not very familiar with the bible but that does not allow me to be biblically ignorant in this debate. However, I will state it as I've stated before. When elected officials take the oath of office, they place their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, not the other way around. Under the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny anyone any rights on any basis. [6] --> I will also go into the utter ignorance that is the "gay's shouldn't even be allowed to adopt. Because that adopted kid was formed by a man and a women, let's not corrupt its mind to be gay." Alright. Well, I'm going to break this down, or attempt to without getting my own feelings involved. I notice that my opponent is against abortion… Let me ask you, where do you suggest we put the children that are put for adoption? Orphanages are becoming rapidly overpopulated, if two women or two men can provide a great home for a child it should be nobody's business. That is unless you'd rather abort them. Why isn't heterosexuality a sexual perversion? Because everyone in your family is straight? Because everyone you know is straight? Do you understand that we gay folk come from you straight people? We can't reproduce ourselves so we have to come from somewhere. But first, my contentions. I am going to list a few and then elaborate on them in later rounds – I misjudged the character count. A)– Traditionalism a. The traditionalist view of marriage is tired. This view is tired because it has been around for so long and relentlessly abused. If we were still operating off of original traditions people in long term, committed interracial relationships would not be permitted to get married either. Women who had sexual relations with their husbands prior to being married would be stoned to death [see video]. I think that was also in Leviticus. The fact of the matter is the times have changed and it might benefit the church system to get with them. B) – It is irrational… a.It is irrational to deny a group of humans a human right. The California Supreme Court has recently spoken about how marriage is rapidly becoming a human right. If I do recall correctly, I believe the Declaration of Independence reads that all men are created equal and that everyone deserves a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By denying a man from marrying his male partner we are impeding the quality of his life, the unnecessary limit to his liberty and depleting his happiness. So not only is it irrational to infringe on someone's basic rights it goes against the culminating point of the documents the United States was founded on. C) – Religion is not an argument… a.Religion is not an argument, it is an excuse. Religion should not involve itself in governmental affairs. That goes against the principle of church and state. There is not a sole universal religion, therefore we cannot claim that gay marriage should not be allowed due the fact that it goes against Christianity. Pam Belluck (NY Times Staff Writer) [8] noted that the states with the highest amount of Conservative Christians also have the highest divorce rate. If the gays are destroying your sanctity of marriage, what are you doing to it? Is it not true that the bible also dictates to love thy neighbor? Or is that only if the neighbor is heterosexual? That is all that will fit for now. I will continue in the subsequent rounds. Sources: [6] - http://topics.law.cornell.edu... [7] - http://www.youtube.com... [8] - http://lists101.his.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-should-be-legalized./6/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.31
      universal: 2.67
      premises: 2.12 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.14)
      basic: 2.01
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.24 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.77)
      should: 4.63
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.54 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.06)
  • PRO

    Circumcision was introduced into Western monotheism...

    Circumcision Should be Criminalized

    http://www.youtube.com... Resolution: Circumcision should be criminalized Definitions: Circumcision: The non-consensual cutting off of a child's foreskin. Should: X 'should' be done in order for X to conform to Western law and Western moral norms. Criminalized: Rendered into a crime punishable by the government. No semantics. (Note: My opponent is not a native English speaker. Voters are asked to mark the grammar and spelling point as a tie as long as he maintains the quality of writing of his first comment in the comment section throughout the debate.) It is not called the 'Partial Declaration of Human Rights'. It is not the 'Sometimes Declaration of Human Rights'. It is the Universal Declaration, guaranteeing all human beings their basic human rights - without exception. Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary General, December 2010 Imagine a man being strapped down to a table. The ministry of health of a repressive state, of which this man is a subject, has decided that all man must be forced to have their foreskin cut off. To save money, no anesthetic will be used. When the man screams out in protest and horror as his genitals are about to be mutilated, he is told the surgery is a medical necessity though all the evidence is to the contrary. For 10 minutes, a surgeon uses a knife to cut in to the most sensitive part of the fully conscious man's body. Is this torture? This is circumcision. The only difference is that, in our society, circumcision happens to newborns. Traditionalism and religion take the place of the repressive government as well as a hospitals industry that makes billions of dollars a year administering circumcisions[1]. Circumcision is an Immoral Religious Ritual in Disguise The shedding of infant blood, as well as the sacrifice of the foreskin is rooted in human and animal sacrifices of ancient Middle Eastern religions - the foreskin serving as a substitute for the entire human victim[2]. Circumcision was introduced into Western monotheism through the Jewish ritual of bris milôh ("covenant of circumcision") in observance of commandments they believe was given to them by their god Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. Later in the 12th century, the Jewish rabbi Moses Maimonides expressed Jewish thinking on the subject. In his The Guide to the Perplexed he says that circumcision is intended to diminish the sex drive adding "The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision."[3] and argued that it should be done to newborns because "for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love [the newborn] is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child". Maimonides recognized that the true purpose of circumcision is to cause a child to suffer so much that, if not done immediately after birth, the parents would protest on behalf of their child's well-being - and this during the Middle Ages when excruciating pain was quite common. The modern practice of circumcision, began to spread in English speaking countries in the 19th century[4] as a method of torture used against little boys for masturbation. As Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a leading proponent of circumcision at the time wrote, "The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."[5] In modern times, religious justifications for circumcision have been replaced by pseudosecular medical arguments in support of the practice. However, modern medicine has exposed these justifications as simply more mythology. This is why no national or international medical association recommends routine circumcision[6]. There is simply no medical warrant for this surgery. Circumcision is Torture It may be tempting to take refuge in the notion that infants can't feel pain. There is no reason to believe this. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Canadian Paediatric Society all agree that circumcision is painful to the infant[7][8][9]. There is no reason to believe that circumcision is not experienced as extreme torture by infants. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock and just staring making gurgling noise[10]. These are the lucky ones. Most babies are forced to undergo the torture fully conscious emitting terrifying screams for 6 to 10 minutes (see video). In addition to the obvious physical torture, the psychological effects of the torment persist after the procedure. The British Medical Association (BMA) states that "it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."[11]. Violent predispositions, disrupted infant-maternal trust and bonding[12], and post-traumatic stress disorder[13] are the psychological effects of circumcision. Circumcision is Technically Illegal The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that a child has a right to not be mutilated[14]. The U.S. Constitution[15] declares that a child has a right to security and property (we can assume that a person's body parts are his or her own property). The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act declares that all infants are considered persons under federal law[16]. Female genital mutilation is already banned under US federal law[17]. Torture is prohibited by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture[18]. Torture is defined as the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain on a person[21]. As noted, circumcision meets this criteria. What we do over 60 percent[19] of male infants in the U.S. would be illegal to do to a terrorist. If Osama bin Laden had been caught alive, it would be impermissible under the Geneva Convention to do to him what we do to our newborns. With all this legal framework declaring that torture and forced amputation is flatly illegal, one wonders if circumcision is already a crime. As it turns out, some Western courts are discovering that, indeed, circumcision is illegal. As one German court discovered, "It had been done for so long that it seemed legal when - according to the court - it wasn't."[20]. [1] http://www.circumstitions.com... [2] http://books.google.com... [3] http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org... [4] http://www.cirp.org... [5] http://etext.lib.virginia.edu... [6] http://www.nocirc.org... [7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [8] http://www.aafp.org... [9] http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca... [10] http://www.nocirc.org... [11] http://www.bma.org.uk... [12] "Circumcision. A medical or a human rights issue?". Milos MF, Macris D (1992). [13] http://epublications.bond.edu.au... [14] http://www2.ohchr.org... [15] http://www.usconstitution.net... [16] http://www.nrlc.org... [17] http://www.fgmnetwork.org... [18] http://treaties.un.org... [19] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [20] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [21] http://en.wikipedia.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Circumcision-Should-be-Criminalized/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 9.29
      universal: 3.13
      premises: 2.61 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.52 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.09)
      basic: 1.66
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.25)
      should: 4.50
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.41 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.02)

CON

  • CON

    However, some type of debate would be pursued regarding...

    The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

    I have one argument, of why it is impossible to affirm. [Definition - Voting] 1. a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative. 2. a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion Now, why does this lead to a negation, simple: My opponent has expressed this: "Basically, the more ideal system I propose entails the use of more vigorous debate. Simply, instead of halting a debate before it comes to a conclusion and then voting, the House and Senate should COMPLETE a debate in progress. For example, let us assume federal lawmakers were considering whether or not to implement a law regarding universal health care. Likely, most of the democrats in congress would vote for it, while the republicans the contrary. However, some type of debate would be pursued regarding the particular bill, but this debate, likely, would not come to a conclusion. That is, both sides (proponents and opponents of the bill) have not reached any type of mutual conclusion. Logically, if a debate were to be pursued vigilantly, with everyone having the chance to debate and create rebuttals against other claims, congress would be able to deduce, with mutual agreement, a shared conclusion to the bill." My Response: Voting will always be done. Looking at the definitions of "voting", even my opponents proposed plan is voting, for it is "a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion". Once the congress comes up with said mutual agreement, then they all have voted pro/con for a proposed bill. After all the debates have be done, what will happen? According to my opponent they will have a mutual agreement. THAT IS VOTING, because each member has either agreed or disagreed with the bill (Like I said before). Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

  • CON

    Which is where the famous phrase "hate the sin not the...

    Should gay marriage be legal

    I accept my opponent's challenge, and hope we can understand the importance of the issue at hand. 1. Born that way This is an often an argument presented. To be "born that way" it must be in your genes, which makes you who you are. "Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings"; and "They found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about 1 in 5 twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother also. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2%. Interesting enough, Bailey and Pillard found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%" [1]. First, if homosexuality is genetic then it should be 100% with identical twin, who share all the same genes. Second, "The concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%" [1]. Homosexuality just like those other things are due to heavy environment influence. Further, Homosexuality being genetic poses a real problem with natural selection. Natural Selection is "the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" [2]. Since, homosexuals can't reproduce with each other how then could they pass on their genes? They couldn't, so natural selection would have "selected" them out of the gene pool. Concluding, homosexuals are not born that way any more than people are born religious or racist. 2. Religion I think my opponents reference about loving everyone is about Matthew 22:39, which states "And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" [3]. This is based on a misinterpretation. Honestly, there are lots of things I do that, I hate, and that part I don't love about myself. Which is where the famous phrase "hate the sin not the sinner", because I will treat everyone with respect, but I can still hate actions they do; This would be loving thy neighbor like I love myself. Further, if we are suppose to love everyone no matter what should we also endorse incest, or polygamy because this same conversation could be used to support either of those even those both of those are condemned in the Bible? Also, wouldn't that also mean I would have to love, without passing judgement, a child molester or rapist? If it does, this is certainly no religion that would ever want be serious because it pardons everyone from their sins without punishment. Concluding, the bible doesn't say love everyone no matter who or what they are. 3. Marriage is more than love "Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [4]. "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." [4] 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." [4] Sources [1] http://www.fairmormon.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://biblehub.com... [4] http://www.scribd.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-gay-marriage-be-legal/12/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.82
      universal: 3.16
      premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.46 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.96)
      should: 4.36
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.28 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.81)
  • CON

    Pro first. ... =) I'm testing a case and want help.

    The United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

    Pro first. =) I'm testing a case and want help.

  • CON

    Indeed, children raised in gay families usually develop...

    Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

    The pleasure is mine, MrBrooks. Let’s get to it. I do believe that the Federal Government should legalize gay marriage in all 50 states. I don’t think this is an issue that the public should vote on. In the case of gay marriage, “majority rule” becomes the “tyranny of the majority.” I don’t believe opponents of gay marriage have valid or rational reasons for wanting to stop gay people from being married. Gay marriage has been legalized in a few states already, and it has not had a negative effect on society. I honestly don’t think if we legalize gay marriage everywhere, it would have any more of an impact on society where it would effect the personal lives of people who are not gay or in families with gay parents. People worried about the children of gay parents should not fret either. Indeed, children raised in gay families usually develop the same as children raised in straight families. [1] [2] While it doesn’t really effect people outside of gay families or who are not gay themselves, allowing gay marriage does offer gay couples and their children security. The benefits and protections that marriage provides would create a secure situation for couples and their families to live in. [3] It offers them a better quality of life. And that’s what we want for all of our American citizens, the best quality of life possible or "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". And as long as it doesn’t negatively effect anyone else’s life, they should be offered it. If gay marriage were to be legalized, what would those opposed to gay marriage lose? Nothing. If gay marriage is not legalized, what would gay people lose? Not only would they lose the ability to be married but they would also lose the many rights, benefits, and protections that come with marriage. It’s simply not a fair game. Let’s look at the Supreme Court’s holding in Loving v. Virginia: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Now, if the Supreme Court came to this conclusion on interracial marriage, why would it not also apply to gay marriage? Let’s take a look at the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, while the states obviously have the power to make their own laws, there are still restrictions. Not everything should be left up to the states to decide. We do need to protect our citizens from mob rule. The majority should not always have the say. [1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [2] http://www.jstor.org... [3] http://www.nolo.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Marriage-Rights-Should-be-Determined-by-the-States/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.80
      universal: 0.37
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      sum: 2.61 (product 2.25, product 0.36)
      sum: 3.01 (product 0.90, product 2.01, product 0.10)
      basic: 2.61
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.14)
      should: 4.82
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.01 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.57)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.09)
  • CON

    Learning other language is very important and no one is...

    All children should be required to learn a second (or third) language at home or in schools

    You stated, “Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen.” Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means. It means that a debate proposal should be possible or enforceable in real world. You’re very ambivalent with what you are saying that your proposal is possible but cannot be enforced. We are having policy debate here so you should assume that your proposal must be enforceable, well that should clear because it’s basic debating. Also you said, “Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one.” I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you’re understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak. Learning other language is very important and no one is contending that it is not, but you’re medium on how children should learn other language is very impractical, and this is what I am attacking. First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. This is unlikely to happen. You use the word “require” which means that your proposal must be enforced and supervised, but how can it be possible? Is it possible? These are questions which you failed to discuss in this debate. All you did was to discuss the benefit of learning other language which I am not even contending. Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced. But this is policy debate, you have to assume that it must be enforceable even if it is not. This is the meaning of practicability which you disregarded.

  • CON

    This is because as you give it more power over your life...

    Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.

    First, to correct my opponent on his understanding of my essential services argument, I stated that “essential government services would be those of the police (domestic protection), courts (justice), and military (protection from foreign invasion).” Not that these were the only services that would be necessary for a long and happy life. Also, I agree that currently in the U.S. the really poor (meaning no income) are not able to afford extensive healthcare, this problem can only be solved with wealth generation and private employment growth only possible through capitalism. I would now like to point out that my opponent has neglected to answer my argument that competition in the healthcare sector drives service quality up, and prices down in order to win the patronage of the market so that the business may profit. Pro also ignores the fact that rather than U.S. citizens going to countries with socialized healthcare for their healthcare needs, it is the other way around. Also, I agree that people should have a basic understanding of the world and while very few people did have access to education prior to public schooling, we have to remember that at the time, public schools had lower attendance rates than the “backward” private ones in places like Indiana and Illinois (http://mises.org...). Also, this lack of availability my opponent mentioned was likely due to the low population density at the time as displayed by this map (http://etc.usf.edu...). Finally, my argument that private industry can provide education at lower overall economic cost still stands as this argument from round one has remained un-countered. The cost of public education is still unreasonably expensive for all those who pay taxes and private industry can still provide better, cheaper education because of competition and profit incentive. While only partial socialization of food/housing is certainly better than total socialization it is still bad because you still create a drain on the economy by taxing the productive people in society to pay to support those who produce little to nothing. My argument that private industry does a better job of production and distribution of food and housing from round 1 has also not been contended and so still stands. Yes, one business could conceivably control the entire network of transportation but this isn’t realistic, because as I explained towards the end of my argument on the third premise, the market changes too quickly for monopolies to form easily thanks to competition, and wealth generation which results in higher pay and better products and increased investment which leads to innovations which in turn breeds more competition. Look to my argument on the third premise from round 1 for more information. Also, the government will not always necessarily answer to the public as my opponent contends. This is because as you give it more power over your life and the lives of others its purpose changes from the purpose of serving the people by protecting their rights, to ruling the people. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. There are more examples of powerful governments ruling their people rather than serving them (DPRK, USSR, Nazi Germany, the Philippines under Marcos, PRC, Iraq, etc.). My opponent’s basic argument for his first premise is that only the needy should get government help and not those who can pay for it. The problems with this is the creation of a disincentive to work. The logic here is simple, “If you don’t have to work to eat, get healthcare, transportation, education and housing, while I have to work in order to have those things for myself and you, why should I work? Why not let someone else pay for both of us?” Thus, the welfare state spirals out of control where more and more people become dependent on the socialized “essential services” for living. The result is a country like Greece or Portugal where people are protesting having to pay the now outrageous bill for their socialized industries. The second premise is affirmed in that the industries mentioned should be part of the free market. In my opponent’s attack on my third premise arguments, he is essentially implying that all the businesses are going to underpay their employees when possible. However if this were historically proven, then Microsoft and Apple would be paying their employees at precisely the regulated minimum wage. Instead computer programmers earned $72,630 each in 2011 (http://money.usnews.com...). Why is this? Part of it is competition as I mentioned in my rebuttal, the other part is the fact that businesses pay employees by how much the business values them. It is very similar to renting an apartment, you pay what it is valued overall by the market except in the case of employees, they are renting their services to employers who make up the market that purchases labor and they purchase it at what it is valued by the market. My opponent also brings up the 1800s as an example of employee defrauding, however the reason that wages were so low was because this was essentially the birth of industrial capitalism and so wealth generation initially of course was slow. However, despite the slow initial wealth growth non-farm income between 1865 and 1900 actually grew by 75% contrary to what my opponent would have you believe (http://en.wikipedia.org...(1865%E2%80%931918)). As to environmental regulation. Yes the property rights system works, the only reason that people pushed for regulation was the same reason that people pushed for other regulation of free markets. Impatience for social change and the contrast between the improved and the yet to catch up (http://mises.org..., and The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek). Also, when private property rights are not respected but are part of a vast government regulation system for purposes including the environment or socialization of industry, you get something like Zimbabwe (http://www.cgdev.org..., http://www.cgdev.org...). And the reason for the lawsuits is that then you get a case by case analysis of property damage and not simply an overarching regulation and an unelected board that has the authority to stop you from building a home on a piece of land that is owned by you simply because they think it’s a wetland (http://online.wsj.com...). Environmental regulation of the sort my opponent proposes only opens the way to bureaucracy and oppressive government. Finally, as to antitrust, the reason that antitrust laws were passed was a misunderstanding of the market by the majority who also happened to be the impatient and slow to catch up ones mentioned earlier in this rebuttal. Despite what my opponent would like you to think, antitrust is not good because of the fact that it reduces the incentive for businesses to compete by ensuring that the government will protect them from being out competed by a more efficient business in the same industry (http://mises.org...). Further, just because a group of people think that businesses have too much power and that antitrust legislation doesn’t make it so. That people voted for antitrust was my opponent’s only answer to my explanation of the rarity, short life, and relative harmlessness of natural monopolies in a completely free market system thus my argument still stands. I would also like to point out that my opponent made a similar answer to my explanation of the environment and property rights.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Essential-services-should-be-socialized-and-privatized-services-should-be-regulated./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.79
      universal: 0.88
      sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.84)
      sum: 2.63 (product 2.18, product 0.45)
      sum: 2.32 (product 0.98, product 1.25, product 0.09)
      basic: 2.63
      premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.45 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      should: 4.28
      conclusion: 2.94 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.10)
      premises: 1.25 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.98)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)
  • CON

    People who work for 1$ an hour say that their work is...

    Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

    People can NOT protect themselves by simply quitting and choosing jobs. Minimum wage ONLY affects certain jobs like fast-food, mall stores, etc etc. There is a HUGE competition for those jobs and without Minimum wage, everyone would be FORCED to lower their pay standards because there is always somebody who will ask for less. With Minimum wage, competition for the job will be about SKILLS and not the LOWEST BIDDER. I am a college student and A. I have no trouble finding work B. I CAN'T work for lower than minimum wage because I have BASIC LIVING EXPENSES such as gas to get to work, books for classes, and food. C. I don't have time to work for 1$ an hour. Without minimum wage, I would have to work for MUCH LESS than 6.50$ an hour or else I won't be hired. And even if I was, I still wouldn't be able to buy books or drive my car. Minimum wage is not INTRUSIVE. It is SUPPORTIVE. People who work for 1$ an hour say that their work is only worth that much, whereas to the Business, it could be worth A LOT MORE. For 1$ an hour, the business could be making $100/hr from that person's work. Businesses can take advantage of people because most unskilled laborers (like teens) have NO CHOICE but to work for that job. Minimum wage protects people from BUSINESS and OTHER PEOPLE. You said: "Minimum wage wastes money that could be spent elsewhere. Also, foreign countries can invest more into what they choose giving them the upper hand. Ive explained why it lowers the global economy, now you actually give a reason why it strengthens it." It WASTES money?? It wastes money on PEOPLE?? People who need food, clothing, and THINGS?? This explanation fails to grasp how an economy works. People spend money and businesses sell things. Everyone invests or saves. If PEOPLE had more money, then PEOPLE could invest or buy things, and THAT strengthens the economy. It all must balance out. You said: "Shouldnt a company be able to decide whether skills or money is more valuable?" I've picked up a common theme in your arguments. You believe that people are invincible, therefore people should be able to do whatever they want. I encourage you to read about the Robber-Baron period in American history. That business mindset did not work out well back then for the country. "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUS MADE ARGUMENTS AS WELL:" As for all the strict arguments you ask me to answer, I will not. I will not address them until you back them up. As they stand, they are opinions with no credibility and I do not want to touch them.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Minimum-Wage-Should-Be-Abolished/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.77
      universal: 0.65
      sourceText: 0.65 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.36)
      sum: 3.05 (product 2.68, product 0.36)
      sum: 2.08 (product 1.00, product 0.99, product 0.08)
      basic: 3.05
      premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.14)
      should: 4.07
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 0.99 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.79)
  • CON

    Contention 1 Limitations around privacy. While privacy is...

    Privacy should be valued over security

    Contention 1 Limitations around privacy. While privacy is a great freedom that we all share, it has limitations. As long as their is no need to breach someones privacy, they should under all circumstance be able to maintain that privacy. The issue at hand is you are claiming it should be valued over security. The issue with this is that security falls into the category of the well being of others. So if it were upheld that privacy should always be valued and prioritized over security, it would serve as a catalyst for things that should not need to take place. Think about the context of this resolution. Example A : it could lead to drug trafficking. If it were upheld that someones home privacy is valued over national security, it would and could reduce the chance of being able to catch illegal acts that would occur. Someone could state this rule, and run any type of illegal operation from their home. Example B : Acts of murder : Someone could take the life of another and evidence could be cut short, if that persons privacy was upheld before the security of other. Example C : Sex Trafficking : Just imagine if this was upheld in someones business. That it is their right to hold privacy over security. Take a strip joint. It would almost surely increase prostitution, and even lead to the chance of prostitution of minors because there would be no way to confirm or check it. The essential claim you are making, is that under no circumstances should someones privacy should be breached even if it means the security of others. I will or can not agree with that resolution. I have just listed a few, but there are countless other ways, this could and would be exploited. Contention 2 There has to be a balance Should he have said, that there needs to be a balance between the both that I would agree too. I would never say either that security should be valued over privacy. That would lead to the government having to much authority. Example A : They could tap our phones and few messages or emails that are entitled to us Example B : Just imagine someone reading conversations or looking at image exchanges between your wife/girlfriend There are also tons of reasons this could be exploited if we said security should be valued over privacy. That is why we need a balance between them both. One should not override the other, and in terms of keeping people safe there has to be limitations to each. Contention 3 Issues where security should have came before privacy. (A) A business example of this would have been the Enron scandal. Due to them having to much privacy and no internal operations and limited external regulations, it led to one of the biggest scandals in US history. I am all to familiar with this having studied accounting and went to work as an accountant. Essentially Enron poured billions into trading ventures and a majority of them failed. Here is one way they cheated the system. As posted by a Fox reporter " Enron invested a bunch of money in a joint venture with Blockbuster to rent out movies online. The deal flopped eight months later. But in the meantime Enron had secretly set up a partnership with a Canadian bank. The bank essentially lent Enron $115 million in exchange for Enron's profits from the movie venture over its first 10 years. The Blockbuster deal never made a penny, but Enron counted the Canadian loan as a nice, fat profit." The issue was at that time it was not against the law. Through multiple failures and them eventually facing bankruptcy, it was a detriment to the economy and even share holders at the time. Since them the Sarbanes-Oxley act has been put in place to help catch situations like this. The business can maintain its privacy but within proper regulation. This should be the case in most scenarios. Rebuttal 1 The right of privacy I will address this briefly. Privacy should be a basic human right, and should not be breach unless needed as I have stated above. This is probably the best passage I have read regarding the issue. "This results in the battle of personal privacy versus national security and everybody agrees that both aspects are incredibly essential. At the same time, the complete existence of one rules out the existence of the other" That is pretty much on point. Both are essential but there has to be a line drawn where they both can coincide to assure us that we can maintain the right to privacy as long as we are doing nothing to hinder the well being of others. In Closing I agree that privacy is an essential right, but so is the maintaining and upholding the well being of others. If there is anyway to protect others, and prevent bad circumstances for happening it should be pursed and chased. I think there is a line where both need to meet equally and work together. If one were to override the other, it would be a detriment to us as a nation. Therefore we need both privacy and security to guarantee the safety of our nation and the people within it. http://law2.umkc.edu... http://www.soxlaw.com... http://www.journalofaccountancy.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Privacy-should-be-valued-over-security/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.76
      universal: 0.37
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      sum: 2.27 (product 1.77, product 0.51)
      sum: 3.31 (product 0.90, product 2.30, product 0.10)
      basic: 2.27
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.51 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.61)
      should: 5.11
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.30 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.80)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.10)
  • CON

    In negating this resolution I will argue specifically...

    abortion should be illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

    I feel like there wasn't any formalized argumentation from my opponent to start this debate, so I fee like this is a chance for me to present an opening statement of sorts that explains where my argumentation in this debate is going to go. Abortion is a subject that people simply refuse to agree to disagree upon. Thus, I feel that this is an important debate. I look forward to seeing what argumentation my opponent plans to provide. In negating this resolution I will argue specifically that the legality of an action comes form the idea that one's rights end where another's begin. This is a basic legal philosophy constructed by John Stuart Mills and is where we justify legal principles and laws. Using this conception of the law and justice, I will argue that abortion should not be illegal in the sense that abortion does not infringe upon a fetus' rights (if they indeed have any) in such a manner that it constitutes law to prevent it. I will explain this more fully in my further argumentation. Good luck to my opponent. I look forward to debating such an important issue with you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/abortion-should-be-illegal-in-first-trimester-but-not-investigated-nor-punished/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.75
      universal: 0.37
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      sum: 3.95 (product 3.71, product 0.24)
      sum: 2.12 (product 0.65, product 1.37, product 0.10)
      basic: 3.95
      premises: 3.71 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.24 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.77)
      should: 3.43
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.37 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.11)
  • CON

    I put it in premise-conclusion form in a recent debate...

    Abortion should be banned.

    Introduction Welcome people of DDO! I thank kingkd for giving me an opportunity to debate this important issue. In the following I will argue that Abortion should not be banned. To do so I will first of all offer a negative case in which I am going to respond to my opponents opening statement, secondly I will offer a positive case in which I am going to present several arguments in favor of abortion by the Australian philosophers John Leslie Mackie and Peter Singer and the American philosopher David Boonin. Negative Case: Responding To My Opponent 1. Personhood and Killing In his first contention Pro argues that even abortion proponents concede that a fetus is a human being, a person even, which seems to imply that we should therefore refrain from aborting pregnancies. I am inclined to agree with the first part, but this is no concession at all. Many liberals argue about some point in time when a fetus becomes a human being, but I think this is arbitrary. As such none of my arguments will revolve around this. However I disagree with the latter part, because my opponent did not define a person at all. John Locke for example defined a person as "a thinking intelligent being that can know itself as the same thinking thing in different times and places"(1). By this definition no fetus would ever be a person. Since I my arguments will have the above outlined focus I want to take a brief moment and clarify what it is I am exactly arguing for: the question to me is not whether a fetus is a human being or not or living or not, but rather the more general question of whether (or when) it is permissible to end the live of something or someone. This question is not to be answered by simply pointing to race, sex, age, intelligence or species. 2. Don Marquis 'FLO' Argument and Singers Totipotent Cell Objection Premise 1: Having a future of value is the basis for the right not to be killed. Premise 2: Fetuses have a future of value. Conclusion: Fetuses have the right not to be killed. (2) This is Don Marquis Future-Like-Ours argument against abortion in premise-conclusion form. Accepting it leads to unacceptable consequences, which I will show with Peter Singers' Totipotent-Cell Objection (3). I put it in premise-conclusion form in a recent debate (4): P1. A fertilized ovum has a FLO. P2. If one single cell that can develop into a person (fertilized ovum) has a FLO, any single cell that can develop into a person has a FLO. P3. Denying such a cell a FLO is immoral. P4. Abortion denies FLO's C1. Abortion is immoral. P5. A fetus consist at some point of totipotent cells (TC). P6. All TC's can develop into persons if separated. C2. All TC's have a FLO. C3. Not separating TC's is denying them a FLO. C4. Not separating TC's is immoral. Accepting Don Marquis argument commits us to the view that not extracting every embryo from its mother womb to split it up and implant all totipotent cells into several surrogate mothers is immoral. This is of course absurd since it is virtually impracticable on a large scale and most importantly even if we could do that the human race would go extinct since we cannot allow any embryo to develop into an adult human being. Positive Case: Arguments In Favor Of Abortion 1. J.L. Mackie: A Universal Approach (5) In his book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong Mackie argues that the arguments against abortion generally conclude or presuppose that a fetus (as a human being) is already a legal subject and as such are at their core arguments from continuity: if newborns have a right to life, claiming that children shortly before birth do not is arbitrary, if this point in time is arbitrary so is the point before that and so on until we arrive at conception. Speaking of rights for germ cells is of course ridiculous since nature is way to wasteful for that, hence the continuity ends at conception. However Mackie thinks that this discontinuity is a rather inappropriate line for deciding what is permissible and what is murder, one of the worst crimes someone can commit, just because it is a 'notable' occasion. Other than that there is no big difference between a sperm cell and an egg cell and a sperm cell inside an egg cell. A gradual acquisition seems more reasonable. Therefore Mackie concludes that: 1. a mother's right over her own body outweighs the right to life of the fetus at least for the early part of her pregnancy, 2. if a mother's health is in danger due to the pregnancy, the fetus' right to life is overridden for the full duration of the pregnancy, 3. if a mother does not want the child (because she was raped), the fetus' right to life is overridden, too. 2. P. Singer: A Preference Utilitarian Approach (6) Preference utilitarianism (hereafter PU) is a modern version of the classical hedonistic utilitarianism (hereafter HU) of Bentham and Mill. Whilst the HU decides what is right and what is wrong on the basis of whether it increases or decreases welfare, the PU decides what is right and what is wrong on the basis of whether it satisfies or frustrates desires. Pro points out that the brain development begins rather early in pregnancy and that "By the sixth week, the brain emits measurable brain impulses", but I would like to remind everyone that "measurable brain impulse" is a rather vague account of embryonic neural activity. In the sixth week the entire embryo is smaller than the size of a dime (7). This should give an impression of the mental capabilities of an embryo at this age and concluding that it feels just as we do is erroneous. "It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system."(8) This suggests that a fetus cannot have any preferences up to this point and as such Singer concludes that we have no moral obligations towards fetuses. 3. D. Boonin: A Desire Based Approach (9) Boonin's Organized Cortical Brain Activity argument basically goes as follows: P1) Organized cortical brain activity must be present in order for a being to be capable of conscious experience. P2) Prior to having a conscious experience, a being has no desires. P3) Desires are necessary in order for a being to have a right to life. P4) The fetus acquires organized cortical brain activity between 25 and 32 weeks gestation. C) Therefore, the fetus has no right to life prior to organized cortical brain activity. Boonin's desire based account is fairly similar to Singers' PU with slightly different implications for other issues, so my justification of Singer's account is fitting for this argument, too. Conclusion In this first round I gave a strong account in favor of abortion. Next round I will defend it against objections from my opponent. Sources (1) http://plato.stanford.edu... (2) http://jme.bmj.com... (3) Peter Singer, Practical Ethics P143 (4) http://www.debate.org... (5) J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Chapter 8.9 A Right to Life (6) Peter Singer, Practical Ethics Chapter 6 (7) http://www.hhmi.org... (8) http://informahealthcare.com... (9) David Boonin, A Defence of Abortion

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-banned./4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.74
      universal: 2.01
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.02)
      basic: 1.59
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)
      should: 4.14
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.95)