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

PRO

  • PRO

    For instance, if radical, bloody jihads are caused by...

    Adults should stop policing skateboarders

    Thin-Sliced Why should skaters receive any respect; aren’t they just troublemakers? On the contrary, a skateboarder is as much a person as you are and is thus entitled to as much respect as anyone. Nevertheless, skaters are being discriminated against every day. I know this because I am a skater, and I have experienced the almost universal negative reception which skaters receive primarily from adults. The disgusting generalization of skaters as obnoxious and dangerous comes from a lot of fear and hatred. Shame on society. Adults must stop unnecessarily policing skaters because such actions are primitive, offensive, and unjust. It was mid-evening, and the neighborhood streets were already bathed in the pale orange light of the street lamps. Daniel and I cut through the street on our skateboards. We sped down the street on our boards, and then slowed to a stop in a cul-de-sac. “It’s a great night for skating,” Daniel said, getting off his board. “Yeah, it’s cool and quiet,” I agreed. We sat on the sidewalk on our boards in front of a house in silence for a moment. “We probably won’t get to do this for awhile since school is starting soon,” I said. Daniel responded with a nonchalant shrug. “Well,” I began, rising to my feet, “let’s enjoy it while we can.” The two of us had begun to walk away from the sidewalk holding our boards. Just then, headlights pierced through the darkness and rounded the corner into the cul-de-sac slowly. Daniel and I stepped out of the car’s way awkwardly as it seemed to approach us like some enigmatic red predator. With an electronic “woosh” the driver’s side window sailed down. Inside was a blond woman, probably in her thirties, leveling a cold and questioning stare at us. “Who are you?” Her tone matched her gaze.p\ Daniel and I stopped and stood a couple of feet from the side of her car. “I’m Kevin, and this is Daniel,” I said. “Where do you boys live?” she asked scarcely after I had replied. Still I ventured to answer politely, “Daniel lives up the street.” “What are you doing here?” she asked. Once again, she almost cut into my reply. I began to feel vexed. This woman didn’t care about my answers; she only wanted to interrogate me with disdain. “We’re just chilling.” “Yup, just cruising around,” Daniel chimed in. “You’re just chilling? Well what are you doing in front of my house?” she asked. “We were talking, m’am; we didn’t even know this was your house,” I returned. I had done nothing wrong, so I wasn’t going to let a super suspicious woman upset me. She seemed perturbed that we hadn’t kowtowed to her imaginary authority. She was also lacking justification for her hostile suspicions. “Well, it’s dark out, and I was just wondering why you boys were hanging around my house,” she said in her icy tone. I laid down my board and mounted it; Daniel did the same. “Forget about it because we’re leaving,” I said. And with that, my friend and I skated out of the cul-de-sac and back up his street. I was burning with anger and indignation. Who was this woman to interrogate me with such cold manners and narrow preconceptions? I’d just been subjected to prejudice of the most disgraceful kind, one based solely on a person’s image. She was ill disposed to me from the moment she saw me. I had been thin-sliced. When you see someone with a diminutive figure and large glasses, you may automatically categorize them as a “nerd” without any basis for your judgement other than your perception of their appearance. She had seen two teenagers with skateboards and reduced us to troublesome, rowdy, profane, and dangerous youths who had no right to use the space of sidewalk in front of her house. We did not deserve the resentful recognition we had received from her. Her cold hostility resulted from the widely popular idea in communities that skateboarders menace and terrorize society. However, such thinking is archaic and small-minded. For instance, if radical, bloody jihads are caused by Muslims, should we then classify all Muslims everywhere as violent and belligerent human beings? The answer is glaringly obvious. It took much time for me to get over my feelings of anger towards the injustice of being treated like a second class citizen. Eventually I moved on, but I know that this won’t be the last time I am marginalized. In conclusion, society, particularly adults, should desist in treating skaters in a way that is demeaning. Treating my kind with disrespect and scorn will accomplish nothing besides causing them to retaliate and attack. Adults commonly and frequently generalize us on the account of their own bias. I admit some of our public reputation was earned, but does that mean we can’t earn a better one? The Declaration of Independence states that, “all men are created equal,” so don’t skateboarders deserve basic human respect? In light of this, the next time you encounter a skater I hope you will accept that skater with an open-mind.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Adults-should-stop-policing-skateboarders/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 8.79
      universal: 2.58
      premises: 2.12 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.46 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.96)
      basic: 2.07
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.96)
      should: 4.14
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 1.34 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    If you won't buy this, then how about the claim that this...

    A secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs.

    While I am rather a strict atheist, or antitheist some might say, I do genuinely believe that religion has not only the universal right to be expressed, but the constitutional right. By this, I mean firstly it's one of our most basic and palpable human rights, and secondly, religion has unequivocally shaped almost every civilized society on earth. This doesn't mean, however, that every civilized society must remain politically theocratic -I'm absolutely convinced in saying that secularism is, without a shadow of a doubt, the way that modern society must progress; be that socially, politically, or in fact religiously; the reason being that secularism supports an obvious distinction between religion and government, where neither have any executive power on one another. Another fundamental principle of secularism which is incredibly advantageous to both state and religion is that it allows everyone in the public square to voice an opinion and gives them the right to persuade or dissuade people in any respect. In other words, secularism is about inclusivity, so why would a secular society essentially ban all religious practice? In doing this, it excludes a vast majority, which defies the very nature of secularism. Many would argue that France is the most secularized country on earth, because of its tight restrictions on religious practice. But don't you think that this has something to do with public opinion, where 40% of the population has absolutely no religious belief? If you won't buy this, then how about the claim that this is just a piddling attack on faith executed by a few hundred corrupted politicians? And I'm sorry, but when I was researching this topic and searched 'French corruption', three politicians had been taken to court on grounds of corruption, in the past 2 days. I'd say that the France are both politically and morally questionable at best. Because of this, I hope we won't be using France as a flagship in this debate. A notable chapter in history was the rise of communism in the Soviet Union, where Stalin grasped the power of state. While he was in power, he banned religion, claiming that he was the supreme ruler, and his people should have no other idols. Indeed he made a very good case, and worked hard to make sure religion was eradicated. Religion didn't die out though, it simply went underground, and very few were dissuaded from their beliefs. The point of this is that religion is ineradicable, so a law that prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs would be absolutely frivolous. Quite frankly, the criminalization of something so dear and sacred to people is both frivolous and unacceptable. I personally have known people who have had incredibly difficult and harsh childhoods, and the way that they obtained comfort was through simply going to a church and praying. This is a religious practice isn't it? Do secularists really wish to take this offer of refuge and salvation away from the masses. Around 70% of England has a religion... How could it be democratic to ban religious practice? I understand that not all of these people will practice regularly, but I've mentioned a few times now how secularism is inclusive of all and doesn't give any culture a predominant position in society. Instead, it demands equality. How awful would it be to prevent a woman, whose son is near to death after a horrific accident, to act on her beliefs and pray? It's inexcusable, and while I do still maintain my position on religion that is purely atheistic, I truly believe that banning something so dear to people would be an unwise and terrible thing to do.

  • PRO

    Figure 3: The minimum lengths are significantly higher...

    Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms

    C1) Multiple Nested Hierarchies A nested hierarchy refers to the way taxonomic groups fit completely inside other groups [3]. For example, all humans are mammals, all mammals are animals and so on. A specific method of organizing nested hierarchies is the cladistic method which is based on common descent [10]. If common descent is true, members of a group would have to share unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These features that are shared between two or more groups and their most recent ancestor are called synapomorphies as shown in Figure 1 [6][11]. Figure 1: The vertical shaded regions show synamorphies As we represent these genealogical relationships in a tree, we get a branching tree-like diagram called a phylogeny. A simplified version of the standard phylogenetic tree is shown in Figure 2 [4]. Figure 2: Simplified standard tree As the phylogeny shows, we can group organisms into various nested sub-groups based on morphological features. The only known processes that specifically generate unique objective nested hierarchical patterns are evolutionary processes [7]. The difference between subjective and objective hierarchies is an important distinction. Any group of things can be organized into a hierarchy. Automobiles can be grouped first by their manufacturer, then by the number of wheels, then by gas mileage etc. Yet, a different classification could be made by grouping by number of wheels first, then by manufacturer and so on. The attribute chosen first is determined by the individual. Many phylogenies that are equally well-supported can be generated which all look different despite having the same initial data. An objective nested hierarchy on the other hand produces a unique, well-supported tree much like the classification of languages which evolved from a common ancestor. The degree to which a phylogeny shows a unique, well supported tree has been quantified with extensive statistical analysis. These tests measure the degree of hierarchical structure within a phylogeny. One such study performed by James Archie of the University of Hawaii randomizes the given data and performs cladistic analysis on the randomized data to obtain a distribution of minimum tree lengths. He then tests whether the minimum tree length generated by the real data is significantly less than that generated by the randomized data as shown in Figure 3 [9]. Figure 3: The minimum lengths are significantly higher after randomization This establishes that evolutionary processes generate nested hierarchies that are objective and unique. Species can be easily organized into nested hierarchies based on morphology. As shown in Figure 1, animals can be organized into ones with organs and ones without. Within animals with organs, there are vertebrates and invertebrates. Vertebrates are never found without organs. Similarly, mammals are never found with feathers. This is a very specific consequence of the mechanism described by common descent. Furthermore, species can also be grouped based on independent molecular studies. Certain genes called ubiquitous genes exist in all living organisms because they perform very basic functions. Any given ubiquitous protein has a very large number of protein sequences which can perform the same function. No specific sequence of proteins are functionally necessary for a given organism. Heredity is the only mechanism which causes two organisms to have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins. Cytochrome c is one such essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms. A study by Hubert Yockey shows that there are 2.3 * 10^93 possible sequences for cytochrome c. Humans and chimpanzees however have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. [6] Phylogenies made from molecular studies [14] match with phylogenies from pre-molecular morphological analysis [13] with high statistical significance. There are 10^38 different possible trees that could have been developed yet both morphological and molecular studies yield similar trees with greater than 99% confidence [16]. If common descent were false, independent cladistic phylogenies based on common descent generated using different criteria must lead to different phylogenies. C2) Comparative Anatomy Since the standard phylogenic tree is the best approximation of a unique tree, all fossils are expected to conform to it within the error of scientific methods. According to the standard tree, we would expect intermediates between birds and reptiles and between birds and mammals. However, we would not expect to find intermediates between birds and mammals [20]. Archaeopterex is a well-known intermediate species between birds and reptiles. Figure 4: Archaeopterex The wrist and finger bones are unfused like in theropod dinosaurs and a long bony tail is present as in reptiles. Like birds, it has wings but those are structurally dissimilar to modern birds. Parahomology is structural similarity with functional differences. When a species branches out, it may acquire new functions. To perform these functions, it works by modifying the existing structures. The same bones in the same relative position of the human hand perform different functions in bat wings, mole forelimbs, and whale and penguin flippers [17]. Independent fossil records confirm that these structures were derived from others with a general chronologic progression of intermediate forms. Theropod dinosaur structures for instance were modified into modern bird structures. Common descent could easily be falsified if the fossil record showed bird wings transforming chronologically into reptilian arms. Fossils records show the origin of whales from terrestrial mammals based on morphological and vestigial evidence. The fossil sequence from terrestrial mammals show more and more whale-like forms appearing until the development of the modern whale. Figure 5: Whale evolution [18] For instance, the anvil of the middle ear in the Pakicetus is morphologically intermediate between modern whales and modern artiodactlys (like cows and hippo). Vestigial structures provide strong and direct evidence of common descent. Vestigial organs are rudimentary body parts smaller and simpler than corresponding structures in ancestral species [21]. Modern whales have rod-like pelvic bones, femora, and tibeae, alll embedded in their musculature while earlier species like Basilosaurus have intermediate sized vestigial pelvis and rear limb bones [19][22]. The chronology also matches as it co-incides with extinction of marine predators which allowed pre-historic whales to move into the sea [22]. To conclude, the morphological and molecular nested heirarchies match closely enough such that it would be nearly impossible for them to be random chance. Furthermore, we can clearly see evidence of common descent from transitional links like the Archeopterex and the fossil evidence of the transition of whales from land mammals to aquatic mammals. Sources [3] http://evolutionwiki.org... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://pandasthumb.org... [8] http://www.math.osu.edu... [9] http://www.botany.wisc.edu... [10] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://archive.org... [14] http://www2.isye.gatech.edu... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com... [18] http://www-personal.umich.edu... [19] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [20] http://tinyurl.com... [21] http://tinyurl.com... [22] http://www.talkorigins.org... [23] http://www.talkorigins.org...

  • PRO

    Similarly, there is also a "popular" (and therefore an...

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

    Greetings, In this particular debate, I will be arguing that, because voting is a flawed method for establishing federal laws in the Untied States, the act of voting should not be used in the United States House or Senate. Definitions: Voting – casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution. Flawed – having an imperfection of defect. Federal – of or relating to the central government. Federal laws are created in the United States House and Senate. I am arguing that merely voting on a particular measure is a flawed method to create a law. Merely voting means that the majority wins. My main case in this debate will be the following: "What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular." This quotation depicts that there is a "right" (and therefore a wrong, as well) that is present. Similarly, there is also a "popular" (and therefore an unpopular, as well). The process of voting fails to take into account what is "right" or "wrong," but merely what is "popular" and "unpopular." This, in my view, is wrong; and what is wrong should, ideally, not be implemented into federal level. Because voting is largely subjective, necessitating its voters to determine what may be preferable to them, instead of what is indeed right, the process of voting if inherently flawed. So how do we determine what is right? Well, logically, what is right can be deduced via debate by those involved in the particular measure that would otherwise be subjected to a vote. I can get into this in subsequent rounds, but I would also ask that my opponent read a previous debate I have had, regarding a universal truth, as parts of it may be relevant in explaining and deciphering what is correct. http://www.debate.org... As well, my opponent in this debate should be in favor of the process of voting to establish federal laws in the United States. Again, in this debate, I am arguing that voting is a flawed mechanism for establishing federal laws in the United States. Because it is flawed, it therefore should not be used. I look forward to the debate.

  • PRO

    Creationism should still be taught, not in science class,...

    Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution vs Creation)

    opening: scientific theorem, creationism is not a science I apologize for the inconvenience that i jumpstarted the debate too early and have started debating when i should've agreed to the debate terms. i hope that this will create more thoughtand effort into our debate.Firstly, I concede that creationism is not backed by science or evidence because creationism is a faith based belief that cannot be taught as a fact. Like i have previously stated, Creationism is not a science and should not be treated like one. Con has tried to disprove a belief with science, even though creationism the people who believe in creationism are devoted to it completely by faith. Throwing facts and figures at a belief is like shooting a gun to make plants grow, there is no function. It's true that God or Jesus didn't write the bible, but it is the belief that those who were under his influence did, and God gave those people the necessary knowledge. Also, con's claim that gravity is a theory as well is false, since gravity is a force and phenomenon described explicity in Newton's law of universal gravitation. Evolution "I believe the scientific theory of evolution is currently the only logical explanation for our existance today" Utilizing the exact words con has provided me, evolution in con's argument should be the only logical explanation for our existance today. Con also failed to address my point on biogenesis. If evolution truly does explain all existence of organisms, where did they all originate from? Since biogenesis is an integral part of evolution, it is a topic that is imperative that Con should address. I extend my evidence that Evolution does not explain our existence without the need of other scientific postulations and theorems and evolution in itself is not an explanation at all. Evolution is not the only logical explanation for our existance today. Also, Evolution is a theory, Macroevolution has never been observed but the steps needed to take it have evidence to back it up. education Creationism is a footnote in today's education system and it should remain a footnote. Creationism represents a major belief that encompassed much of the world's thought since ancient times and it is still a major belief held onto by many people. Even if creationism isn't real, it should still be taught on the grounds that it was the accepted thought for many past generations. Creationism should still be taught, not in science class, but in classes such as social studies like in a history class for example. Creationism is not a religion in itself, but a religious belief. It’s important for children to know all ways of thinking. debate Trying to argue that evolution is right and that creationism is a false dichotomy. One is the theory of how organisms change into their current form, the other is an belief that there is a divine being(God in most instances) has created everything. Our debate does not come down to whether or not God or Evolution has created Humans, rather, it comes down to whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools. It also comes down to whether or not creationism is a viable explanation for our existance. conclusion In conclusion, i would like to reiterate my previous statements that Con has failed to address. I should not have to prove that Creationism is right and that evolution is wrong. Rather, i must show that creationism is a viable explanation. But a viable explanation" is not universal since an explanation is merely a statement that makes something clear, both creationism and evolution can make our existence clear to many different sorts of people, therefore having only one explanation is illogical. Since i must present a case that creationism is a "viable explanation," then i will state that God created everything. That is a statement that makes something clear to someone(how we came about) and is viable since it is feasible for a mind to believe as millions have previously accepted this belief. Con has repeatedly tried to attack this position with scientific evidence which i refuse to address because i have already stated originally that creationism is a belief and not a science, it is based upon faith and not by observations. scientific analysis of a a religious belief is ludicrous. Con has supported a scientific theory with scientific evidence. My job is not to prove creationism, it is to show that it can be a viable explanation. Like it or not, hundreds of millionions of people believe in creationism sources www.wikipedia.org http://www.talkorigins.org...

  • PRO

    I'd like to thank lannan13 for accepting this debate...

    The United States Should Switch to a Single Payer Healthcare System

    I'd like to thank lannan13 for accepting this debate challenge. I will divide my arguments into two sections: a moral case, and an economic case. I will show why single payer is both the proper moral plan as well as the proper economic plan. THE MORAL CASE FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE Health care for all is a moral issue. The United States is the only industrial nation that does not have some type of national health program. While other countries have declared health care to be a basic right, the United States treats health care as a privilege, only available to those who can afford it. In this sense, health care in America is treated as an economic good like a TV or VCR, not as a social or public good.[1] The Uninsured and Underinsured The most vulnerable victims of the current American health care system are the uninsured and under-insured. Because of the high medical and insurance costs, there have been countless needless deaths. Because of the Affordable Care Act, it is estimated that upwards to 50,000 lives have been saved[2]. However, an estimated 20 million people will still be uninsured or underinsured by the year 2020. Compared with the health systems of other industrialized nations, the U.S. system is an outlier in terms of health care cost, access, and affordability. One-third (37%) of Americans went without recommended recommended care, did not see a doctor when they were sick, or failed to fill a prescription because of costs; compared with as few as 4% to 6% in the UK and Sweden. (Cathy Schoen, 2013) Prevent Bankruptcies A Harvard medical study showed that medical debt the number one cause for bankruptcy: “Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical and 92% of these had medical debts over 5,000 or 10% of pretax family income.” (Himmelstein, 2009) Even those who are employed and have insurance are not immune to bankruptcies due to medical debt. Indeed, the same report found that of those whose illness contributed to their bankruptcies, 77% were insured, 60% had private insurance. By the time of bankruptcy, the portion of patients with private coverage had fallen to a mere 54%. (Himmelstein, 2009) Part II: The Economic Case for Single Payer Significantly Reduce Cost The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced major reforms to the health care system that will improve the lives of many Americans. However, we must go further to fully solve the healthcare crisis. The U.S. government spent $4,197 per person in 2013 on health care. In contrast, the UK spent just 2,802 per person (Mangan, 2015). Dr. Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at University of Massachusetts, found that single payer would save an estimate of $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). These savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else. No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care. (Friedman, 2013) Restore Physician-Patient Relationship and Increase Patient Choice A universal health care system would restore the physician-patient relationship and free physicians from the bonds of managed care and overwhelming paperwork, while still giving patients a free choice of physicians and hospitals. References Cathy Schoen, R. O. (2013). Access, Affordability, and Insurance Complexity Are Often Worse in the United States Compared to 10 Other Countries. Health Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.commonwealthfund.org... Friedman, G. (2013). Funding HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. Retrieved from http://www.pnhp.org... Himmelstein, D. T. (2009). Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007:. The American Journal of Medicine, 1-6. Mangan, D. (2015, October 8). US health-care spending is high. Results are...not so good. Retrieved from CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com... [1] http://www.amsa.org... [2] http://www.ahrq.gov... see also https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  • PRO

    Among those measles cases reported during the first 7...

    Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled

    Thank you for accepting this debate. I would like to clarify my viewpoint. I believe that parents have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. I also believe that those parents who decide not to vaccinate their children, should not be denied an education but should be denied the ability to integrate their children into the public school system. That being said there are other methods of learning and accessing a proper education outside of public school also this debate is nothing more than hypothetical scenario for me. I will further support my points below. Contention 1: The Constitution makes no mention of education reserving it as a right given on the state level, See the 10th amendment. The state ultimately has the power over educational institution and ultimately makes all the laws. There is a universal right to an education but there is no universal right to attend any specific public education institution. This would not infringe upon the free will of an individual at all seeing as they have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but access to state regulated public schools can be restricted for good reason without infringing on rights or being unlawful. (students who have been expelled). (1) Contention 2: See my above point. No free wills are being broken here. "What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated." By Social Contract I mean parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others. Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time. Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2) "No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child." That is a bold statement, the CDC says otherwise: "No federal vaccination laws exist, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Depending on the state, children must be vaccinated against some or all of the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, partisans, tetanus, and polio." (3) "What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " Measles was declared eliminated in the US by 2000 and its recent comeback can be attributed to the growing population of unaffected children. This is a reference to a CDC study supporting my point. "Sporadic importations of measles into the United States have occurred since the disease was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000 (1). During January--July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000--2007.* This report updates an earlier reporton measles in the United States during 2008 (2) and summarizes two recent U.S outbreaks among unaffected school-aged children. Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years, and 91% were in persons who were unaffected or of unknown vaccination status. Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing (3,4). The findings demonstrate that measles outbreaks can occur in communities with a high number of unaffected persons and that maintaining high overall measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage rates in the United States is needed to continue to limit the spread of measles." (4) "That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional." This is irrelevant to my argument. Back to you! 1) http://www.departments.bucknell.edu... 2) http://www.westonaprice.org... \ 3 ) http://www.cdc.gov... 4) http://www.cdc.gov...

  • PRO

    Plus, with a single-payer system, health records are much...

    The USA should establish a Single-Payer Health Care System

    Before I start this debate, I will say that I defend the resolution, while Con defends a private health care system. I request that in the last round, Con doesn't add any new arguments. I will do my best to win this debate. Single-Payer Health Care System in USA would: Restore true competition to medical providers Increase innovation Be More Efficient Decrease total costs Coverage of all citizens Improve quality of care Improve national economy C1: Restore true competition to medical providers There are two different areas where competition exists in healthcare, 1) payers, and 2) providers. With private insurance payers, there are a lack of choices for the consumers. The reason is to make the insurance company gain a profit. It gives too much power to the administrators instead of the actual medical experts. It is offensive to medical experts as well, as well as the people who have their loved ones die because of these choices. In a Single-Payer system, people can go to any provider of health care in the nation. It would be much more efficient. Medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as it should be. It is also Capitalistic, because medical professionals would be still forced to make good decisions in health treatment, or else they will lose patients. Health providers get profits still in a Single-Payer system, and doctors still are well paid. Therefore, Single-Payer would restore true healthy competition to medical providers. [1] [2] C2: Increase Innovation Currently under HMO/ insurance payer system, grants payed towards medical research and reduced, and with much higher costs in the private system, innovation is less than what is would be in a Single Payer system. Plus, with the commericialization of research, innovation is stifled. With little to no commercialization of research, and with much more funding, as well as more research, a Single Payer system would increase innovation in healthcare. [3] C3: Be More Efficient The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. [3] Typical HMO's have about 15-25% of total costs directed just to administrative costs. Medicare, a form of a single-payer healthcare system for the elderly, costs about 3-6 percent in total administrative costs. [3] [5] With a larger economy of scale, costs would be even lower for administrative costs. Plus, with a single-payer system, health records are much more streamlined, and would make shuffling paperwork unnecessary since records can be recorded in a electronic way. With much more electronic, streamlined recording, much less spending on paper-shuffling and much less spending on administrative costs, and by lowering bureaucracy, a Single-Payer healthcare system would be much more efficient, modern, would be more affordable, and cover all fairly and effectively. C4: Decrease Total Costs With a Single-Payer system, everybody is covered with high quality insurance. Experts have said that the USA could cover all medically indicated care for all citizens without additional expenditures, because current insurance premiums, as well as administrative costs, could be shifted to care instead. [5] [6] Paul Krugman, a famous economist and Nobel Prize winner, called the Single-Payer system, "good economics", and wrote, "The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs... Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance." Krugman also has pointed out that the savings of single-payer would be "far more than the cost of covering all those now uninsured." [7] [5] The gov't of Colorado hired the Lewin Group Technical Assessment to analyze how well several different health-care proposals might work for the state, and the result from the group was that the "single-payer plan was the only one that would achieve universal coverage and also save money - about $1.4 billion a year. " [8] [5] The government will also not need to pay for profits, marketing, shuffling paperwork, higher adminstrative costs, etc. Plus, with more directed funding, the per capita spent on healthcare would drop, as quality improves as well. If you look at other nation's spending on healthcare per citizen, many get better care for lower costs. For example, look at France, the nation with the top ranking healthcare, the USA spends twice as much, but is 36 spots behind in healthcare. This represents that a Single-Payer system is needed. [4] C5: Coverage of All Citizens A single-payer healthcare system covers all citizens with quality healthcare. C6: Improves Quality of Care Health Insurance companies usually base decisions based on coverage, restrictions, and costs, and what will make the company prosper. This does not equal great care, and may even conflict with that. [5] A single-payer program can allolocate resources based on the two vital parties in a healthcare scenario: the patients and the providers. Plus, Single-Payer plans in the USA, such as Medicare, show that the patients have higher levels of satisfaction with coverage and access to care than people to private insurance. [5] Plus, France has the top-ranking healthcare in the world, and is a Single-Payer system, and has a comprehensive plan for all citizens. However, it only has to pay HALF of what the USA does. The USA is only in place 37, but is number 1 for spending. [9] C7: Improves National Economy States and other businesses would have to pay less on medical care for their workers. Right now, American workers also have to compete with foreign businesses which nation's have universal health care. For example, in 2006, health care for workers added $1,500 to the price of a medium size care, while the cost in Japan was about $500. This, as well as other reasons including a cut in HALF OF BANKRUPTCIES due to a lack of medical insurance, and lower costs by a Single-Payer system, would help the economy. [4] [5] I will discuss in a different round how a Single-Payer system would be funded for. Conclusions: A Single-Payer Healthcare system would have huge benefits for the USA. A Health Planning board, if included (I debate Pro for this being the primary government body of execution of healthcare) would decide on what treatments, medications and services should be covered, based on community needs and medical science, and allocate capital for major new investments based on assessments of where need is greatest. Plus, coverage would be universal for a Single-Payer healthcare system. Quality would absolutely improve for all. Medical records could be streamlined in an efficient way. The national economy would get a boost with 1/2 of bankruptcies removed, and with much lower costs, businesses would be more competitive, and have more funds available. It also modernizes the USA, helps all our citizens, and returns legitimate healthcare competition to the providers and patients, while the government facilitates better health care for all. Sources: [1] http://bcn.boulder.co.us... [2] http://www.pnhp.org... [3] http://www.pnhp.org... [4] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. 104-124. Print. [5] Sherrow, Victoria. Universal Healthcare. 1st ed. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. [6] http://www.mdanderson.org... [7] http://www.nytimes.com... [8] http://healthcareforallcolorado.org... [9] http://www.photius.com...

  • PRO

    If I could have, I would have voted No to this bill and...

    The Obama Care bill should NOT have been passed

    I would like to say a few words here before starting my opening argument. I respectfully request that only an American Citizen please join this debate on the 'con' side. I have nothing against view points from other countries on health care, but with a bill where American tax dollars are being used, I find it to be a more honest debate between two citizens directly effected. If I could have, I would have voted No to this bill and look forward to debating with someone who would have voted yes. (http://www.examiner.com...) Thank you. On to the topic: My contention is that the health care system in America is and has been broken for quite some time now. It is an important topic but not more important than our economy, jobs, etc. This bill was very politically motivated and rushed though without getting all the facts ahead of time. It is a simple case of throwing money after a problem and hoping some of it sticks. This plan will cost even more money than expected and will not cover ever single American. Health care reform is an important issue but there If I could have, I would have voted No to this bill and look forward to debating with someone who would have voted yes. (http://www.examiner.com...) Thank you. On to the topic: My contention is that the health care system in America is and has been broken for quite some time now. It is an important topic but not more important than our economy, jobs, etc. This bill was very politically motivated and rushed though without getting all the facts ahead of time. It is a simple case of throwing money after a problem and hoping some of it sticks. This plan will cost even more money than expected and will not cover ever single American. Health care reform is an important issue but there It is a simple case of throwing money after a problem and hoping some of it sticks. This plan will cost even more money than expected and will not cover ever single American. Health care reform is an important issue but there should have been a smaller and more controlled plan proposed rather than this monster overhaul of health care. Aside from this bill costing more money and putting America more in debt, there is also a problem in terms of the government controlling yet another aspect of American lives. The main argument against health care is against the insurance company, but this bill will effect the doctor's jobs far more than the insurance companies. Additionally, this bill has a lot of special exceptions and deals for certain people and states as well as additional government take-overs that are not related to health care. This alone makes this bill unfair for the American people as whole. Again, we need health care reform. Every American should have the right for some sort of basic coverage of their health. This plan does not do that, it is not opening a small door for the few uninsured to walk through and have some basic access. It is taking over the whole industry and making decisions for the industry which it has shown a very poor track record of doing in the past. It comes down to this simple point. If I had a vote on this exact bill, I would have voted NO. I welcome my opponent to share his or her thoughts on this issue next. Again, I request that my opponent be a citizen of the United States and is someone who would have voted Yes to this specific Obama Care bill. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Obama-Care-bill-should-NOT-have-been-passed/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 8.65
      universal: 0.32
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.66)
      sum: 4.41 (product 3.97, product 0.44)
      sum: 2.35 (product 0.79, product 1.47, product 0.09)
      basic: 4.41
      premises: 3.97 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 0.44 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.39)
      should: 3.93
      conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 1.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.92)
  • PRO

    Is it possible, subsequently, to accuse the creators of...

    Pressure to wear veils is fine; cultural pressure is universal

    Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions, and could also be argued as limiting "choice" in an equivalent manner. Is it possible, subsequently, to accuse the creators of more Western fashion trends of limiting the ability of their followers to "choose" their own fashion statement? How can we isolate wearers of the Hijab as violating freedom of "choice" principles through cultural pressures, if we then allow similar cultural pressures to limit "choices" among more Western cultural expressions.

CON

  • CON

    Notice they said weapons and in the picture their are...

    universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

    Power is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the ability or right to control people or things." In this sense our government certainly has power. They certainly have the power to take away our rights, but will we as a people allow them to do this? It is therefore only up to us the people to safeguard our own rights. I think Pro has a short memory, or at least has never studied history. Rome was a Monarchy at first (like the Colonies under British rule). Rome was then a Republic (Like we are now). Then Rome was made into an Empire (hopefully we will never be under the rule of an emperor). Are we so forgetful? Are we so proud to think that we are an exception to the rule? You are correct that our rights are not absolute, but that is only because nothing is absolute. Our freedom that we have right now is not absolute, and can be lost overnight without the ability to arm ourselves. Do you need a more recent example? What about Communist China, Communist Russia, Nazi Germany? All of these nations right before their moment of radical change urged (and forced) people to turn over their guns. This occurred right before each respective radical change because the people when disarmed could no longer oppose tyranny. The list goes on and on, but if you still need more proof research the Tytler Cycle. It is an actual cycle still studied today that describes the different phases a civilization will go through before returning to bondage (that is if the society can survive until then). You can argue that every civilization ever (including the US) has followed the phases in this cycle. http://static.prisonplanet.com.... This is a poster from Russia that translates into "Turn in your WEAPONS comrades." This poster was dispersed throughout Russia right before they nationalized (stole) independent farms from their citizens. Notice they said weapons and in the picture their are swords as well as firearms. This perfectly illustrates that they want the security of knowing they have disarmed their citizens, and therefore their opposition. In other words their goal wasn't for brotherly peace among their own people, but rather more power. I would like to point out that it is very racist and closed minded of Pro to associate criminals with black people in the ghetto. Pro needs to understand that not all violent criminals are black or live in the ghetto. But Pro also rejects the fact that again a criminal who has already decided to commit a violent crime (premeditated risk) will not be stopped by the legal parameters set in place to prevent them from obtaining the means to commit the crime. They will buy a firearm off the street, smuggle one, or buy one from the deep web, and those are just the options I can think of off the top of my head. I am not ignoring anything, rather Pro is. She is saying that a hate filled lunatic who has already premeditated a mass shooting will stop because his background check didn't clear. No that person won't stop because they are still bent on destruction. They will either obtain a firearm through illegal means or simply find another means to destroy (arson, stabbing, bombing). Don't believe me? http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... This article describes a mass stabbing at a train station in China that left 29 people dead. It is sad that no armed citizen was able to save innocent lives since China bans it's citizens from possessing firearms. The point that Pro can't ignore from this article is that a person who is bent on destruction will use whatever means they can to destroy. Humans have waged war, committed mass homicide, and just killed each other for as long as history has been recorded. People who wish to commit violent atrocities will stop at nothing to commit them, for they have already made up in their minds and in their hearts to hurt another as much as they hurt if not more. I couldn't find the statistics in Pro's argument that she said shows that more guns in an area means more overall death. Is this a typo, a technical error, or did Pro simply not include any statistics? Don't worry, I have some statistics for us. http://www.wnd.com.... Since 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia (population 32,400) has mandated that every head of household own a firearm. Since then, "not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting " as a victim, attacker or defender." So this proves that guns are not the problem (and possibly the solution), but rather bad people and people who are products of a bad environment are the problem. But I'll continue with the UK. The United Kingdom (England, Scotland and Wales) bans the private position of all automatic, semi automatic rifles and shotguns, as well all handguns. Essentially you can only own a gun for hunting and sport (bolt action rifle or a hunting shotgun). This is a 2009 article from the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk.... "The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent." "Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent." "The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent." All of these statistics are from 2009, a decade after the ban of all the firearms listed above. This proves that violent crime is not directly related to the number of firearms, but rather the culture that produces the criminals who commit violent crimes. Pro thinks that guns are inherently evil, and that less guns would mean less dead. I believe that this is not the case since a violent criminal will use any means to commit the crime. Pro has provided no statistics, and suggests that we simply take her word for her argument. A firearm is ultimately nothing more than a mechanized piece of inanimate metal. It takes a person filled with fear/anger to commit a violent crime using a firearm. A background check would ultimately only filter some of the criminals out of the system, but would also filter some law abiding citizens out of the system as well. The only difference is that the criminals will then pursue illegal means to obtain a gun, and the law abiding citizens will not pursue illegal means since they obey the law. This would disarm law abiding citizens, preventing them from protecting their self, their families, and most importantly their freedom. Remember Rome was a Republic before it was an Empire, and we are still a very young Republic.

  • CON

    Lets examine how homosexuality was erroneously removed...

    Resolved: Homosexuals should be permitted to marry

    I can't believe how easy my opponent has made this for me, all that work and rhetoric about sickle cell for nought. For the record sickle cell has nothing to do with marriage nor does my opponents detailed analysis of chromosomal function. My opponents contention seems to be(once one swats away all the irrelevant factoids) that homosexuals should be treated in the same manner as everyone else and afforded all of the same rights as they are equally human. I agree. So then I suppose I just won this debate as homosexuals already have the right marry just like every other adult human in the U.S. My opponent will argue that they should be able to marry the person of their choice and again I agree. They can already marry the person of their choice. They simply have not been afforded the right to marry someone of the same sex as that does not constitute marriage and would be an additional right to the one they already have. It would be discriminatory to the rest of the population to allow homosexuals to call their relationship marriage. My opponent also contends that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or psycho-social in nature. Lets examine how homosexuality was erroneously removed from the list of mental illnesses. In 1973 after threats, intimidation, and disturbances of the APA proceedings, the APA eventually left the diagnosis in the hands of popular vote by the membership. All of the research up to this point confirmed that homosexuals were indeed psycho-socially abnormal in addition to being at higher risk for alcoholism and other mental disorders. There has never before or since been a medical diagnosis which was rejected by simply a raise of hands. If the diagnosis was removed in error as I have shown unequivocally, then we must assume that homosexuality is in FACT a mental disorder. There are also a large number of ex gays which proves it is a treatable mental illness. Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes: The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times. Along these same lines, a recent radio documentary on the subject of homosexuality revealed that the President-elect of the APA in 1973, Dr. John P. Speigel, was a "closeted homosexual with a very particular agenda." Some have exaggerated or misrepresented these studies in an attempt to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Others insist that homosexuality is developed after birth as a response to one"s environment. The truth is that we have no conclusive replicable research to prove either conclusion. However, most researchers have come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is likely determined by a complex interaction between a person"s genetic make-up and their environment. Even the American Psychological Association asserts that: There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17.. And the American Psychiatric Association wrote: Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. So all that crap research you posted regarding the non-existent biological link,debunked. Just give up while you still have no credibility. Enjoy!! http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com... http://www.dailykos.com...#

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Homosexuals-should-be-permitted-to-marry/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.22
      universal: 0.26
      sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.54)
      sum: 2.59 (product 2.25, product 0.34)
      sum: 2.56 (product 0.90, product 1.56, product 0.10)
      basic: 2.59
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.09)
      should: 4.37
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 1.56 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.23)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.02)
  • CON

    People will not accept this idea, and if the government...

    Gay Marriage should be legal.

    Hello. As a pre-note I must add that I don't intend to insult anyone in this debate. I honestly don't care what gay people do, and no offense is meant. Now I will show why it is that gay marriage should not be legal in the United States, the presumed realm of this debate's context. CONTENTION 1: Gay Marriage is contradictive. Let us view this problem through a religious lens. In the bible it implicitly states man and woman were created, and that they would be reunited in marriage. REunited shows the fact that man is a half and woman is a half. When put together they are compatible on multiple level. First, obviously, they are compatible according to the Bible. The Bible obviously condones heterosexual relationships as being good, and homosexual ones being bad (I'll mention this later.) Secondly, two males/females cannot reproduce together. The goal of sex is primarily for reproduction, so obviously a relationship that IS homosexual is a destructive one. First of all, because they can't have kids. Secondly, because they are taking away from the available male population, decreasing the amount of heterosexual relationships. For every 1 homosexual relationship there are 2 heterosexual relationships that can't exist. So this means that homosexual relationships hurt not only themselves, but everyone else as well. CONTENTION 2: Causes major social problems as well. First of all, divorce is 1.5 times more common in same-sex marriages for men, and 3 for women. This leads to a ever-growing gash in the social community, and is not healthy for the homosexuals or the heteros either. This is just another example of the problems this causes and who it affects. The larger problem with this is quoted in my source. "When society continually calls "marriages" unions that almost invariably end in divorce in 1 to 10 years or turn into "open relationships," the cheapening effect on the institution of marriage will be inevitable. " Marriage is a sacred union, and when we descry it, it takes away from the value of the process itself. CONTENTIONS 3, 4, and 5 This last contentions are short and to the point. I won't layer them in tricky terms and words, just deliver the facts. THREE: First, we can expect an eventual end to any structural prerequisites for a legitimate sexual relationship. This means that when we start to not value the what marriage is, we lose what we have to do before we can get married. We will completely slander the meaning of marriage and soon it will be just another pointless ritual, much like eating of going to the bathroom. FOUR: Second, there is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual practice Children are very susceptible to being permanently swayed by the things around them, especially homosexuality. If homosexual marriage and acts become a norm, than homosexuality will too. This will make my points mentioned earlier drastically worse. We will not survive in a world run by this sexual perversion. FIVE: Third, "gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice Finally, this one says that homosexuality, since it's already prejudiced against, this prejudice will increase with unaccepted acknowledgement of the fact. People will not accept this idea, and if the government enacts it, then people will hate the practice even more, leading to even violence and murder of anyone gay or suspected of being so. This is just ANOTHER example of how this practice will affect not only homosexuals but everyone. IN SUMMARY This will lead to violence, chaos, hate, and extreme social and reproductive distress if put into effect. Not only will the affect homosexuals, but it will affect everyone else as well. 10% of the population is not worth problems for 100% of the population. This is basic logic, and this is why gay marriage should NOT be legal. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Marriage-should-be-legal./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.22
      universal: 0.26
      sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.54)
      sum: 2.59 (product 2.25, product 0.34)
      sum: 2.37 (product 1.00, product 1.28, product 0.09)
      basic: 2.59
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.09)
      should: 4.37
      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 1.92)
  • CON

    Health" is a very broad concept that could end up being...

    Abortion should be made legal.

    If you don't think debating the status of a fetus (or more accurately, a Zygote, embryo or fetus) is productive, you should have picked a different topic to debate because, as I said, that's central to whether abortion should be legal. You say life doesn't begin at conception because a zygote doesn't have "human characteristics." But you never tell us what "human characteristics" you're talking about and why no fetus has such "human characteristics" prior to birth. You concede that a zygote, unlike a sperm or egg cell (both of which inevitably die out on their own if they're not fertilized) will develop into a human. In fact, the zygote, unlike the sperm and egg cells, has the DNA of both parents, which of course is the necessary building blocks for human growth. So in that respect, the zygote is a "human" in a way that the unfertilized egg and sperm cells are not. You further argue that the zygote "needs nutrition, protection, and a slew of other things from it's mother." What's your point? So does a baby after it's been born. So therefore, a zygote is clearly materially different than an unfertilized sperm or egg, and your hilarious tangent about banning masturbation and menstruating women being prosecuted for murder is not relevant. You focus heavily that a child conceived through rape is forced on the woman. Undoubtedly, but the same is true (at least to an extent) of any child conceived through sex where pregnancy was not intended. But as I said, the manner in which the child was conceived doesn't make it any less human or any less worthy of protection. At 17, you might not fully grasp this about the world, but people are forced to do things against their will ALL THE TIME, both due to the law and to the fact of their particular situation. Lots of children are unwanted and/or live in homes that are less than ideal. That doesn't make their lives worthless or make them second-class citizens less worthy of protection or less worthy of having their most basic right (the right to life) respected. You mention some "right not to do what you tell me." No such "right" exists. All laws involve telling people what they can and can't do, whether that means stopping at red lights, taking out the trash cans on Tuesdays for collection, or not aborting fetuses. You claim I am being "oppressive" if I do not concede a "health" exception, but, of course, you've made no effort to define exactly what such an exception an entails. "Health" is a very broad concept that could end up being the exception that swallows up the rule because it would apply in so many situations. I gave a specific answer to as to when I would consider abortion justifiable -- I would not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if doing so be either life threatening or present a sizable risk of grave, physical harm. As for your forgery argument, tomorrow, go ask your doctor to forge up some medical records for you or to write you a bogus prescription. See how far you get. Do you honestly believe that a sizable number of medical professionals in this country would risk their medical licenses (i.e., their livelihood) so that a woman can get an abortion? Get real. As an aside, I'm not aware of any FORGERY allegations with respect to the Iraq issue -- only that the intelligence was bad and/or politically manipulated. As for your argument that "banning abortions won't stop them," my response is the same as the previous round (which you didn't address) so I won't repeat myself. To clarify a statement I made in the previous round which you appear to have misunderstood, I never said abortion was murder (incidentally, most convictions for murder do NOT result in executions, especially if we're not talking about murder in the first degree). What I said was that this debate was about whether we SHOULD equate abortion with murder. To continue briefly on this tangent, your statement that "under no circumstances is murder considered ok" is simply not true. Murder is ok in certain situations, including self-defense, defense of others, etc . . . . In any event, making abortion illegal would effectively send the message that society does NOT consider abortion to be okay except in those same limited situations. I never said people get abortions because "they like killing zygotes." Where did that come from? I understand that people have motives to get abortions, but they will only seek out abortions if the determination behind that motive outweighs the risks and the difficulty and inconvenience of the obstacles imposed. Therefore, the harder it is to get an abortion, the less people will actually get one, even if they have "motives". Of course information about where to obtain underground abortions will not be readily available if abortions were made illegal. That's why they'd be called UNDERGROUND. The internet is generally nice resource, but it doesn't really address this issue. Underground abortion providers won't want the police finding them, and it was you that said such abortions would ultimately go unreported. I am curious as to what websites would be accessible to women seeking abortions but would somehow be inaccessible to police and reporters. I didn't provide an "alternative" to the suicide argument because the suicide argument is ridiculous. You don't legalize something because somebody holds themselves and others hostage. Otherwise, you'd be creating some pretty perverse incentives. You want to legalize crystal meth? Just threaten to go on a killing spree and then commit suicide. That way, legalizing crystal meth will save lives in the end. In any event, you haven't provided any evidence that such a sizable amount of women would actually contemplate suicide if they were denied an abortion to make this "argument" even worth considering. Life isn't outweighed by unfettered liberty. If it was, anybody would have the "liberty" to kill anybody else. We have fundamental rights (most of which are set forth in the Bill of Rights) which may not be infringed, but those simply don't include an unfettered right to abort a fetus at any time before birth. Indeed, one of the basic notions of individual rights is that your liberty ends at the point where you're infringing on somebody else's fundamental rights. And since the fetus is a life with rights worth protecting, "liberty" cannot be said to include the absolute right to an abortion.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-made-legal./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.19
      universal: 0.59
      sourceText: 0.59 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.25)
      sum: 2.45 (product 2.18, product 0.28)
      sum: 2.15 (product 1.00, product 1.05, product 0.10)
      basic: 2.45
      premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.87)
      should: 4.15
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.06)
  • CON

    I'm going to offer rebuttals in the following round and...

    Men accused of rape should be castrated

    I'm going to offer rebuttals in the following round and strictly focus on contentions in this one. I want to point this back to round one and show what this debate is going to be focused on. Men who are accused by two or more *women* of rape should be castrated. Now on to the contentions C1) Accusations vs Convictions Accusation - a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong. [1] Conviction - to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trial Literally when we are balancing the difference between an accusations and conviction, it's a monumental difference. One is actually processing and declaring someone guilty by a legal trial or system, and the other is merely asserting that someone is guilty. I feel bad for taking this debate because by the resolution it is immediately flawed. My adversary not only has to show that castration is a viable and ethical way to punish people for rape, but he must also defend the fact that people *accused* of rape should suffer castration. Also this is not just people that are accused by a legal system, it is people that are accused by a majority of women (2 or more). Needless to say that from the start of the debate there are flaws in this perspective. Anyone can theoretically be accused of anything. To show how and why this is flawed let's review a scenario. Say my fiance and 3 of her friends get together and decide they don't like Pro. They call the police and other legal authorities and accuse pro or rape. Note : Accusation is a claim that is not proven to be true, but simply a charge of something. Now according to pro's own resolution, he should be castrated because 2 or more women accused him of rape. Needless to say it's easy to point out the flaw in the resolution and show why it's an impossible BOP to uphold. Any given number of circumstances could occur that could lead to unethical castrations. In pros own resolution he is removing the power away from the legal system and conviction and giving it the public. The amount of faulty castrations would be unheard of by his own criteria. Any 3 women could just get together and accused anyone of rape, leading to non ending castrations. I don't know about other males, but i'm happy I have a penis. I don't want a group of salty btches or some of my exes trying to get my penis chopped off. So just to review this, let's go back over the basic premise of this contention P1) To even properly Defend castration in the case of rape someone would have to be legally charged or convicted of rape P2) Pro is removing the power of conviction and applying accusation as a criteria instead C) The amount of unethical and wrongful castrations would be un ending. In the end pros proposition is not even realistic nor is it viable. Removing and denying someone the right of actually being convicted is actually breaking the 6th amendment in multiple ways as well. I will go over this on my next contention. His position is literally subjective and could be abused by any number of women. The legal system is here for for a reason, and asserting and removing that and replacing it with a 2 women majority is not realistic. C2) Right to a fair trial Another faulty part of this proposition is that it is denying someone the right to a fair trial and the chance to be convicted. You are asserting that if a 2-3 person majority accuse you of something, that is you trial. Per the 6th amendment " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. " [3] It even violates the 14th amendment " Section 1. 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. " [3] Both of these amendments promise someone the due process of law, by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime was committed. Obviously a 2 women majority is not an impartial jury of the state. Again his proposition is violation amendments left and right. C3) Cruel and unusual punishment Another amendment he has broken is the 8th one " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " [3] Torture was banned in all forms a few years back. Torture in it's earliest forms was banned under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights act in 1948[4], but just until recently torture was allowed under the perception of the act. 2 days after Obama took office, he made an executive order to ban torture without exception per the Human Rights act. We can view castration as both cruel and unusual punishment, and even consider it torture. This was not even done to people they were torturing actually. This is beyond both cruel and unusual and is a direct violation of the 8th amendment. Conclusion What my adversary is essentially proposing is an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (code of hamurabi). While it seems like a good idea its not, and there are far more humane ways to discourage people of rape. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.ushistory.org... [4] http://www.ohchr.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Men-accused-of-rape-should-be-castrated/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.18
      universal: 1.84
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.66)
      basic: 1.48
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.21 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.66)
      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 2.05)
  • CON

    Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina,...

    Runaway laws for youth should be abolished

    Hello all, Luvx, best of luck. O my brothers, Little Jimmy was 14 when his mother stuck him undeservingly. Jimmy facing intense pressure and stress at home decided to fly the coup. Where he was going, he could not say... Years later he is living in the slums selling drugs to make a buck. Never knowing the life he could have had if he just persevered or found help. Little Jimmy could never understand that the laws and rules in society were there to protect his best interests. The intrinsic truth of adolescents is they cant possibly conceive or understand the importance of the rules and regulations of our system. Although, the circumstances that they are reluctantly forced upon are unfair and harsh, in many cases, it still beats the streets. The reason for most runaways is a dysfunctional family; problems for young adults may include neglect, divorce or abuse, but even so many teens who leave their home end up living in poverty, malnourished and uneducated. Statistics show that runaway teenagers are at a higher risk of being involved with prostitution and alcohol and drug abuse. An equal important matter is that few places in America actually consider the act 'illegal.' Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, consider running away from home a status offense. In which the runaways in theses districts that are apprehended are tried before a judge as a delinquent or a child in need of services (CHINS) and for the most part these youths will be held in custody until they are of age or relocated to a foster home. Other punishments include probation and a suspended drivers license-nothing more that a slap on the wrist, in my opinion-. The only punishment being that many foster homes maintain even worse conditions for theses youths then their previous homes. Accordingly, perhaps it would be better if more places considered running away an offense, maybe a universal law would educate individuals and there adolescents the dangers of poverty. According the US department of Justice, an estimated 797,500 youths under 18 went missing last year, not including the parents who don't give a crap that there kid is missing and are to lazy to report it. The truth is whether its illegal or not, the government should be making more of an effort to reach these adolescents, providing programs such as talk lines or abuse prevention groups. My concluding point will be, if the intimidating shadow of the Law can save one youth from going running away and ending up a missing persons case, its worth it. These kids need to learn structure; the importance of rules and regulations. Life isn't fair and even though laws are naturally oppressive of true liberty they work to protect society and its best interests. Finally, If you could I would like if you expanded on your statement "To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, some youth will turn to the crime." As it is unsupported and vague. Thank you Luvx, I look forward to your retort. XosL3git- "Here's looking at you kid."

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Runaway-laws-for-youth-should-be-abolished/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.18
      universal: 3.07
      premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      should: 3.63
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.91)
  • CON

    3.1) Abortion is morally reprehensible. ... Sources (1)...

    Abortion should be banned.

    Introduction This round I will again present a negative case for Marquis' FLO argument and Kaczor's constitutive property argument. After that a positive case in favor of my arguments will follow. Clarification 1. Humanhood In the first round, section 1. Personhood and Killing I stated that I agree with Pro when he says that a fetus is a human being, but I explicitly made clear that this is no concession, since my arguments do not revolve around the starting point of human life, yet he pretends that it is. This completely misses the point of my arguments. Moreover he insists that being dependent on someone else (fetus on the mother) does not someone nonhuman, however I never claimed that it does. 2. Personhood In my opening statement I pointed out that my opponent did not define what he means by "person". Hence I presented one possible definition by John Locke which my opponent rejects on the basis that Google uses a different one. It is completely fine to stipulate one particular definition of a word as long as it is clarified at the beginning. However he then says that I admitted that a fetus is a person, which is simply not true, I quote: "Pro argues that [...] a fetus is [...] a person. [...] However I disagree" I can easily agree that a fetus is a "a human being regarded as an individual", but then deny that killing such an individual on the basis of some label like "person" is wrong. This is again no concession. Negative Case: My Opponents Arguments 1. Chris Kaczor's Constitutive Property Argument (1) Premise 1: You are the same being as you were when you were a fetus Premise 2 You are a person (hopefully:) ) Conclusion: The fetus is a person I suppose that by "person" my opponent is referring to "a human being regarded as an individual", since this is apparently the definition established for this debate. One might wonder what is meant by "constitutive property", because it was not explained by my opponent. In his book The Ethics of Abortion, Kaczor argues that only a property that you have at every point in your existence is a constitutive property: p is a constitutive property iff an individual has p at every point in its existence With that out of the way, Pro implicitly made clear by using this argument that personhood is constitutive, i.e., humans are individuals constitutively. "Person" usually has strong descriptive connotations of moral status, however this is merely a linguistic label and Singer's and Boonin's accounts can safely accept this without loosing any force. (This is no concession, in case it will be alleged that it is) 2. Don Marquis' 'FLO' Argument My opponent points out that an abortion is the intentional killing of a being, whilst not splitting totipotent cells is letting nature take its natural course. He believes that this makes a difference in moral evaluation, so what I will argue for is that murder and omitted aid do not make an evaluative difference that would justify calling the first a horrible crime and the latter a permissible course of action. A reconstruction of Pro's argument: 1) Intentionally killing someone is morally reprehensible. 2) Omitting aid to someone is morally permissible. 3) Abortion intentionally ends the life of a fetus. 3.1) Abortion is morally reprehensible. 4) Not splitting totipotent cells is merely omitted aid. 4.1) Not splitting totipotent cells is morally permissible. But this is an ad hoc justification. Imagine an adult human being, John, clinging to a ledge: 5) Kicking John of the ledge is intentionally ending his life. 5.1) Kicking John of the ledge is morally reprehensible. 6) Not pulling up John and letting him fall to his death is merely omitted aid. 6.1) Letting John fall to his death is morally permissible. I'm sure nobody would agree to this, therefore we should reject not only my opponents defence, but also Marquis' argument in general. Positive Case: Defending My Arguments 1. Mackie's Universal Approach This argument was not covered in Pro's rebuttal, because of that I extend all points made by Mackie. 2. PU and the Desire Approach I replaced section 2. and 3. to maintain the flow of this rebuttal. The thing that my opponents whole argument hinges on is that he "proved" that a human embryo has brain waves. First all I would not call citing a pro-life website a medical "proof" that "measurable brain waves" constitute what gives an embryo the moral status of an adult. I searched the cited website and found that the passage Pro refers to is in turn relying on the following quote from the BBC documentary Biology of Prenatal Development: "By six weeks, the cerebral hemispheres are growing disproportionately faster than other sections of the brain. The embryo begins to make spontaneous and reflexive movements. Such movement is necessary to promote normal neuromuscular development. A touch to the mouth area causes the embryo to reflexively withdraw its head." (2) A reflex action is a "involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus" (3) They are not conscious actions and the fetus is not in any way shape or form sentient at this point, it cannot feel pain, has no personality, cannot see itself as a distinct individual over time and it has no preferences and no desires which would be required for PU and the desire view. As such my arguments stand. To settle this issue I will quote The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine again: "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. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed."(4) 3. General Objections Suicidal people Suicide prevention ethics is not an easy topic and it is beyond the scope of this debate to give a definitive answer but none the less I will present possible responses from a preference utilitarian and someone who holds to Boonin's desire view. Preference Utilitarianism: As with every consequentialist theory there is no general rule that could be issued to every case, hence I will list some factors that need to be taken into consideration. Usually before anyone wants to seriously end her life, she will have a long way of suffering leading up to this final decision. A preference utilitarian would answer that it is morally reprehensible to make someone endure the suffering and that it is obligatory to help the person way before she actually looses all interest in living. As for someone with an actual interest in dying (assuming this it is possible), physician assisted euthanasia would spare her unnecessary suffering and is therefore a permissible course of action. Desire View: Boonin differentiates between multiple kinds of desires, the important ones for this objection are actual and ideal desires: "Imagine that a hiker is at a fork in the road and must choose to go right or left. In this situation, the hiker ends up choosing to go left because the left path is more scenic. But little does the hiker know there is a landmine on the left trail which will kill the hiker if he takes that path. The hiker's "actual" desire was to go left, but his "ideal" desire was to go right and not hit the landmine. If this particular hiker knew about the landmine, he would certainly have gone right. Likewise, the suicidal person might have an "actual" desire to not go on living, but if this person was in a situation with better circumstances, his "ideal" desire would be to live."(5) Brainwashed people This objection is fairly similar to the last one and therefore my responses will be fairly similar as well. Preference Utilitarianism: It might very well be that it is possible to brainwash someone to a degree that she would not care to live on. However if we think of brainwashing, we think of torture, pain and suffering, none of which would be permissible to a preference utilitarian. It is therefore morally reprehensible to brainwash people in this fashion. Desire View: Boonin's differentiation between actual and ideal desires fits here as well. It might be that a brainwashed person does not have an actual desire to live on, but she was better informed about her situation she would not want to die. Conclusion My opponent presents a new argument and raises a number of interesting objections, but ultimately they miss their mark. He keeps mentioning that a fetus is a human, however I pointed out on multiple occasions that this is not what I am arguing against. Sources (1) Chris Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion (2) http://www.abort73.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://informahealthcare.com... (5) David Boonin, A Defence of Abortion

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-should-be-banned./4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.16
      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: 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 1.95)
  • CON

    Note that Sony does not represent the American...

    'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

    Thank you to my opponent for a stimulating debate. ______________________________________ In this, my final round, I will summarise the themes and directions of the debate, repudiate my opponents arguments, expound upon my own and finally leave my opponent and the audience with absolutely no doubt that 'The Interview' ought not be banned. Debate summaries: Pro Position: That because the movie is offensive to the North Korean government, it should be censored. In addition, the film is likely to cause an elevation in the risk of global conflict, and for that reason, the movie ought not be shown. My position: The North Korean government is substantially more offensive than the film portraying it. Any person or group of people who threaten violence in response to nothing more than a movie are bullies and terrorists and we should not submit ourselves to their dictate, as their people are forced to by famine and violence. Criticism of authority and freedom of speech are rights which are not afforded to the North Korean people, and we should exercise our rights on their behalf, by proxy. Refutations: - "The purpose of this debate was for me to prove my point that 'The Interview' is morally wrong and could lead to genuine consequences for the USA and other Western countries while your goal is to try to prove that it serves a noble purpose on this planet, but all you've spouted thus far is drivel regarding North Korea and how they're the most manically evil nation ever spat out onto this Earth." Here, Frank is using 'flail' and 'tail whip' in an awkward attempt to invalidate my arguments instead of refuting them. Of course, the action that he says I am obligated to undertake in order to win the debate is exactly what he says I've done by describing how they are essentially a maniac state. To be fair, I then went further to discuss why the movie is important in addressing this. I won't repeat myself here but I was very clear on this point. - I did not say that the crimes committed by the US aren't comparable. I said that just because the US commits crimes, that serves as no validation for the crimes committed by NK. I described this as the Tu Quoque fallacy and gave you a reference to the definition and explanation. - You go on to conflate the actions of the U.S. government and Sony as if they were in the same league. Note that Sony does not represent the American government. On the other hand, the NK government is a state entity. See the difference? If this had come out of the Foreign Secretary's office, you'd have the ghost of a point. But even then, only a ghost. As it stands a private company not in any way elected or representative made a film; this has nothing to do with American bombing etc, it was a private company, not the government. - Why are you only having a go at Sony about DPRK? How about DICE for developing Battlefield where you fight and destroy the Chinese and the Russians? How about James Bond movies and books for portraying Russia as the perpetual bad guy (set during the Cold War, an era of paranoia about Russia and the East, in the same way that we now live in fear of NK?). Why not chastise the producers of Tropic Thunder for the production of an anti-Viet Kong film? - Again, you bring up revenge. Revenge is not a feature, theme nor motif of the film, nor my any of my arguments. We now breach the core point of your arguments, summed up in this quote, which is representative of your case: "It's not offending North Korea that we should be concerned about though, it's what they do in reply to the offence that should be our primary worry." Your case is patently absurd. Should we not tell the church to stop raping children to avoid stepping on toes? Were we egregiously insulting Hitler by telling him that the slaughter of millions of people and bringing the planet's resources to its knees was immoral? Should we abstain from upsetting the feelings of people like Mussolini, Stalin, bin Laden, Gaddafi? Where we are told that we should forfeit our rights and freedoms in the face of violence, that is the time for defence, for intervention, for speaking louder and shouting longer. It is the time not to cower behind a wall of political correctness but to make the atmosphere burn the colour of resistance. Where we model robust and steadfast morality in the face of threats of intimidation and force, we must remain resolute and united. That is why the movie is important, regardless of the quality of the jokes or the specifics of the content. In Summary: You have suggested that the banning of the film is necessary to effect meaningful multi- and polylateral discussions. I say that where any such new friendship is formed on the basis of restrictions of the most basic of rights, then substantial edits need to be made to the conditions of discussion. Cultural sensitivity is one thing. Bullying a civilian company and explicitly threatening the deaths of civilians is another. We must not allow the game to be played in this way. A movie is a movie, and this one may be seen as offensive to the NK government. That's too bad. The actions that they threaten as a result should not shunt the West into a position of kneeling prostration. It's time for the government of the DPRK to grow up. Best of luck at the polls.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Interview-is-a-disgusting-film-and-should-be-banned/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.16
      universal: 0.32
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.66)
      sum: 1.98 (product 1.77, product 0.21)
      sum: 3.06 (product 0.90, product 2.05, product 0.10)
      basic: 1.98
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.21 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.66)
      should: 4.87
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.05)
  • CON

    If an animal is capable in some cases of consenting, but...

    Bestiality should be illegal

    I was using the term "except" to clarify that I meant rape between species, as the conventional definition of rape is restricted to within a species I provided definitions in round 1 to avoid this confusion. Which rights, specifically? ‘These rights include life, health, happiness, safety and freedom’ All those rights are violated by the slaughter of animals for food. Right to health is violated by medical experiments. Right to freedom is violated by fences, leashes, and laws requiring animals to be placed in shelters when they aren’t in someone’s care. Right to freedom is violated by all animal derived products that don’t require harming the animal. Right to safety is violated by using animals in dangerous situations such as police dogs. Not necessarily, but more serious abuses ought to be illegal Good enough. That's a whole other debate :) Rofl, yes it really is but apparently that is not something that the denizens of this site really understand is it? You said all animals had those rights, I am challenging that premise so I guess another debate won’t do, it’s going to be this one or abandon the premise. b) whether it qualifies as an abuse of a magnitude which renders it illegal. What is that magnitude? What is your objective justification for that magnitude? How do you measure the magnitude of an abuse? I defend the premise that all non-human species have one thing in common: they are unable to consent to sex with a human. Why just human? Sex with a toy is not rape in my opinion (so long as the human is consenting) because the sex toy is inanimate, it is not a living thing. What does animation have to do with it? Recall that the consequences of rape do not only involve physical damage, but also emotional and mental trauma and distress. We don't know whether animals can feel as humans do, but we are certain that inanimate objects cannot. So it’s not rape unless there is a possibility for mental trauma and distress? Not exactly. If no bestiality is nonconsensual, you win. If all, I win. If some, we debate whether or not it is possible for a human to accurately judge an animal communicating consent or non-consent. Incorrect, this debate is about whether bestiality should be illegal. A law is a universal. Banning bestiality bans all bestiality. The analogous resolution would be “human on human sex should be illegal”. To win that you need to show all sex is illegal, the fact that some humans rape each other is not sufficient to justify a ban on all human on human sex. If an animal is capable in some cases of consenting, but a human is sometimes unable to understand whether or not the animal has consented Accused human rapist have claimed they didn’t thought the other human had consented. If the possibility for misunderstanding rendered the practice unacceptable then human on human sex would be unacceptable. bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to control that all bestiality be consensual. The law cannot control everything its purpose is to define what actions warrant punishment when those actions are proven to have been committed. You could make the argument that some 17-year-olds are mature and informed enough to vote, but because the consequences of and amount of exceptions are considered significant enough, US law places voting age at 18. Appealing to other subjective standards won’t make yours objective. I think it is quite rational to argue that only "consent in law" should be legally recognized. That is circular logic. ‘Consent in the law should be what consent in the law is.’ However, by this definition, consent can be induced coercively, or in an irrational or ignorant state of mind. Consent is the opposite of coercion, you don’t truly agree or give permission if you are being threatened with force or fraud. People have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance. Thus it is perfectly possible to partially but not fully consent to the accused party's behavior. Hence the phrase "consented in fact but not in law". Hence my phrase ‘inaccurate law’ since it doesn’t reflect the facts. Since we are debating the legality of bestiality We are not debating the legality of bestiality we are debating the ideal legality of bestiality, you must prove that it should be illegal; not that it is illegal or that based on other legal traditions it would be illegal. In essence we are discussing the legitimacy of an agreement – a contract – reached between two parties, that ought only to be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way. This premise is not confused, it is enlightened. A contract is precisely what we are not talking about. You can’t sue an animal for not living up to their side of the bargain. The law does not evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement unless it must enforce that agreement, that is not asked for not required. Now there was a pearl of wisdom in this paragraph: “if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way.” That’s what it boils down to as I illustrated in round two [The justice sys]. Not ignorance, for none of us knows how ignorant we are of what we are ignorant of, but deception. Not intelligence for none of us know how unintelligent we are compared to a greater intelligence, but deception. The refusal to give pertinent information, the direct telling of lies is the only common thread which separates what people think of as ‘informed consent’ from ‘consent.’ The word exploiting is ambiguous. Are animals incapable of "consenting in law"? Do not forget you have not established that animals must consent before the law or at all yet. 4. By extension of #3, the one who consents must be at least equally conscious/aware of what they are consenting to as the other party. Counter-example, I hire a professional expert to solve a problem I am unable to. I am not equally aware of what I am consenting to, by definition I don’t know how they’re going to do it. 5. Non-human species cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. Again, why just humans? 6. In the case of bestiality, the human party takes advantage of the non-human party by exploiting it since it is unable to give consent in law. Define exploit please. 8. If bestiality violates #2 and/or #3, bestiality should be illegal. To recap I have not ceded that consenting to sex is a contract and therefore that 1-3 are applicable. I have not ceded that 1-3 are valid criteria for accepting or rejecting the enforcement of a contract. I have not ceded that consent of any kind is required from an animal for proper legality. Pro is getting ahead of himself. I discussed at length in Round 1 why animals are incapable of "consenting in law" to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. No you entitled a section “Is an animal mentally capable of consenting to bestiality?” and then proceeded to thoroughly establish that humans are smarter than animals, something that I readily cede. You did not however make any progress towards addressing whether they are mentally capable of consent nor did you mention ‘consent in law’ at all. It startles me why my opponent would consider humans' superior capacity to analyze consequences, make accurate predictions, have doubts and anxieties about the past, present and future, and make informed decisions, irrelevant to the question of consent. Startled or not if you want to win this debate you will explain why it is relevant. our language was crafted by and is used by our own species exclusively. Actually animals have used bits here and there. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that animal consent is at all comparable to human consent Do not forget you still have a burden to prove that the law should outlaw non-consenting interactions with animals. Animal consent and human consent, let me compare them. A higher animal (capable of intelligent self-determination) perceives the world, the other life forms in it, and his interactions with them in a certain way as determined by his experience and his intellectual faculties whatever they may be. He decides which actions or interactions he desires based on whatever structure of values he may hold no matter how simplistic. If he decides to desire and indeed perform an interaction with another life form, and subsequently communicates this via any means to the other life form he has given consent. A human perceives the world, the other life forms in it, and his interactions with them in a certain way as determined by his experience and his intellectual faculties whatever they may be. He decides which actions or interactions he desires based on whatever structure of values he may hold no matter how simplistic. If he decides to desire and indeed perform an interaction with another life form, and subsequently communicates this via any means to the other life form he has given consent. There appears to be no meaningful difference. Since I have just compared them, they are comparable. In conclusion the most important hole in my opponent’s arguments is that he has not established that all animals have a right to freedom, that is their consent should be legally required for any interaction.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Bestiality-should-be-illegal/3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.15
      universal: 1.96
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.43 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.91)
      should: 4.90
      conclusion: 3.00 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.81 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.11)
  • CON

    I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. ......

    Resolved: Abortion should be Illegal (Except in life threatening cases)

    I thank my opponent for this intriguing debate. I will refute their arguments in this final round, sum up my own, and leave it at that. Are you serious? The right to life triumphs all. Without life, you don't live. Life is a prerequisite to everything. Compare the rights of life and choice to a cell phone and texting. The right to have a phone is more important, as without a phone you can't text; likewise without life you have no choice. Many choices are limited by government today, mostly choices that harm others such as killing. Being able to kill others is not a choice you should be able to have. My opponent has not provided any real argument as to how the right to life triumphs all. Remember, in this debate, my opponent was to show how the current laws should be changed, and that abortion should be made illegal again. My opponent has failed to show a fetus', a non sentient creature, right to life holds more value than a woman's right to control her own body. Does my opponent really believe that a pregnant woman should have no control over her body, and that she should be forced to carry out a pregnancy? Also, compoaring the rights to life and "choice to a cell phone and texting" is not relevant to this argument at all. The right to control ones body is a basic human right, whereas having a phone isn't even close to being as important. My opponent says, "the right to have a phone is more important than the right to text, because without a phone you can't text, likewise, without life you have no choice." This argument here is not relevat to the debate, there is no logical relation between having a phone, and abortion. But I'd like to remind my opponent, than having a phone does not violate any basic human rights, whereas forcing a woman to carry out childbirth does. Why depriving someone of FLO is a crime? It's not a crime, currently, as abortion is legal. But I argue that it should be because what makes life valuable is the experiences, and depriving someone of them is immoral because that is the purpose of life. I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. Simply because something is "immoral" in the eyes of one person, does not mean it can dictate the law. A member of the primate genus Homo,especially a member of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech. So yes, there is scientific proof for a fetus's humanity: being part of Homo Sapiens defines a human. The fetus has human DNA, not a gorilla's. My opponent doesn't understand, a fetus is an undeveloped lifeform that has the potential to become a sentient creature. My opponent tries to take this whole debate through a detour of this Homo Sapiens argument, when in reality, it has nothing to do with the debate at all. An undeveloped, unsentient, human being does not have the same rights as a sentient, developed human being that is capable of living independent of any other creature. Also, the "proof" that my opponent gives doesn't make sense. My opponent states that a fetus is a human because it's a "Member of the Homo Sapiens species." But then they go on to say that the Homo Sapiens species is distinguished from other apes by "a large brain and the capacity for speech." Even though a fetus is only a undeveloped human being, it does not have a large brain, nor the capacity for speech. So my opponents entire homo sapiens argument is void. Dependency does not determine personhood, dependent people on life support are still human. The difference between a fetus being completely dependent on it's mother is not the same as a person on life support, because the life support machines are not living creatures, and the machines have no rights of their own, such as the right to control ones body. A woman still has the right to control her body, a fetus does not overrule this right. A person on life support has rights of their own, but the machine they are dependent on does not, therefore the machine cannot choose to stop helping the person on life support. Yes, some abortions would still happen. But since I proved scientifically and biologically that a fetus is a human, banning abortion reduces the amount of abortions. Legalizing abortion only made the total number of abortions higher. Saving more lives is more important, and abortion has killed 50 million innocents. This is very much true and comparable to the Holocaust in that innocents were killed in cold blood. My opponent has not proved that a fetus is a human, nor that it's "right to life" overrules a woman's right to her body. My opponent's rebuttal avoids the original point I made. Illegal abortions are very unsafe for the mother, and more often then not, end in harm coming to the mother. My opponent tries to appeal to emotion here, by saying that abortion kills, but it does not. It simply ends the possibility for future life, which is very different. My original point with the illegal abortions argument was that there would be more of them if abortion was made illegal, and this would result in more mothers dying, after being "treated" by an unqualified person. I mentioned them, but I noted they were outweighed by the right to life. THe government has an obligation to save lives. My opponent has not, in this entire debate, proved that a fetus' right to life actually outweighs the right to privacy, which is a constitutional right, or a woman's right to control over her body. My opponent simply states this as their opinion, with no evidence to back them up. My opponent also never proved that the government's obligation is to save lives. A government's obligation is to govern the nation, abiding by basic human rights, which would be violated if women were forced to carry through with pregnancies, as if they had no control over their bodies. Remember Con's concession that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens, This is false, I stated outright that a fetus is an undeveloped homo sapiens, therefore it does not have the same rights as one. Con never refutes FLO either My opponent never showed how FLO is enough to legally prove that abortion should be illegal. My opponent entire argument here was an appeal to emotion, as it is not written in any legal document that depriving someone of FLO is an actual crime. Conclusion In conclusion, a fetus' right to life does not overweigh a woman's right to control her body. The fetus is completely dependant on the mother, and the mother is not simply a container for the fetus, she has rights of her own. The right to privacy, and a woman's right to control over her body cannot be violated simply for the prospect of future life. Vote Con. I thank my opponent for this debate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Abortion-should-be-Illegal-Except-in-life-threatening-cases/3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 7.15
      universal: 0.26
      sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.54)
      sum: 3.20 (product 2.85, product 0.34)
      sum: 2.38 (product 0.65, product 1.64, product 0.09)
      basic: 3.20
      premises: 2.85 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.09)
      should: 3.69
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.64 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.93)