Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Address the obesity crisis in American youth

To begin, let's consider some alarming statistics from "http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions. More than a third of American children aged between six and nineteen are either overweight or at risk of becoming obese. Out of these:

- 58 million are overweight
- 40 million are obese
- 3 million are morbidly obese

Moreover, eight out of ten individuals over the age of 25 are overweight, and 78% of Americans are not meeting basic activity level recommendations. Obesity-related diseases are also on the rise:

- 80% of type II diabetes cases are linked to obesity
- 70% of cardiovascular disease cases are associated with obesity
- 42% of breast and colon cancer diagnoses occur among obese individuals
- 30% of gall bladder surgeries are obesity-related
- 26% of obese people have high blood pressure

Childhood obesity is particularly concerning. A new study suggests that one in four overweight children already shows early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance). Between 8% and 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. Among children diagnosed with type II diabetes, 85% are obese, and 60% already have one risk factor for heart disease (Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com).

The United States is currently the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a major epidemic. To combat this issue, children need to be more involved in school activities and maintain a healthy diet. Parents should take responsibility for controlling what their children eat, rather than the other way around.

While increasing school activities would require substantial funding, isn't it worth the investment to protect our youth? Currently, lunch programs are funded by farmers and large corporations, which supply their products to schools. These companies are profiting from selling high-fat foods to children, causing significant health problems.

Therefore, it is proposed that:

- The National School Lunch program should prioritize providing nutritious lunches for students over aiding farmers
- Commercials should not feature characters (e.g., Lucky Charms) that appeal to children
- Schools should incorporate more activities and educate children about the dangers of unhealthy foods, promoting moderation in their consumption.

I will be representing the Con side of the debate and will be arguing that: the proposed "fat tax" should not be implemented. I will begin by building the Con argument in 4 main points. I will refrain from rebuttal until the second round as a gesture of good will for my opponent and to level the debate. I) There are no objectively unhealthy foods- Not all fatty food is inherently unhealthy. Fat is a necessary part of someone's diet though it should be consumed with moderation. The same is true of sugar and sodium and other components of food that when consumed in excess, have negative effects on health. As an example, the McDonald CEO went a full year eating nothing but McDonalds and actually lost about 20 lbs by eating a variety of things on the menu, controlling his portions, and exercising more. You can eat food usually considered unhealthy and maintain fairly good health if you are willing to try. (1) What is healthy and what isn't is subjective because it is based on many factors like level of activity, an individual's rate of metabolism, various health conditions (anemia, diabetes, etc. ), and even someone's environment and the weather they are exposed to. There is simply no principled method that can possibly set blanket standards that will be healthy for everyone. This becomes apparent when we assess initiatives like Michelle Obama's school lunch efforts where portion sizes were decreased which is bad for growing teens/children that are involved in heavy physical activity like sports. Sugars were also largely replaced with artificial sweeteners that can be equally unhealthy. These measures are ineffective at best and have a negative effect for many. II) Exacerbates crony capitalist corruption- The proposed tax adds to an already overcomplicated and messy tax code. This same tax code is so convoluted that the upper class and large corporations gain advantages through loopholes. This tax also give incentive for food industries to lobby for themselves and against competitors to promote more favorable dietary guidelines in regards to defining unhealthy/fatty foods. For instance, a corporation might seek to support officials that will determine their competitor's food unhealthy due to a particular dietary factor. They would also have incentive to lobby for officials who would protect dietary guidelines that placed taxes on their products. It is also worth noting that these various dietary regulations will hurt small businesses more than large corporations that are more equipped to lobby for favorable standards, engineer their food to meet standards, and take a hit economically from decreased demand. When small business suffers so does competition and our capitalist economy that relies on it. III) Discriminatory and regressive- This is a highly regressive tax because "fatty foods" are generally more affordable source of food and is more heavily consumed by the poor. This tax discriminates against impoverished groups that more heavily rely on cheaper "unhealthy" foods. This will exacerbate wealth inequality and hurt impoverished minorities. IV) Fails to create a healthier society- Unhealthy foods are healthier for the poor then not being able to afford food or skipping meals. This bill would particularly hurt many college students who rely on quick, easy food and would have to pay more or go with less. This bill does not incentivised eating healthy foods it only incentivised not eating unhealthy food. V) Not the government's right- The government has no moral right or Constitutional authority to decide for individuals what choices they should be making about their own health. Under this argument we should tax couches, computers, and chairs for contributing to an unhealthy lifestyle for some. 1) . https://www.usatoday.com...

Can I first ask, that do you not think that being put in a class with all the other obese or unfit Girls and Boys might be a little degrading for the children, and perhaps even worsen they self-confidence levels?You said shy people's fitness would be affected, and credit due, those who don't play enough sport will not get fit. But the sport you do should not be forced upon you. We live in a free country of choice, and children should have the right to make a choice whether to partake in a gym class or not, regardless of weight and confidence.But your last comment or point took me back a little. "be separated by their ability to perform not their gender." Like I said above, how degrading would that be? Put it this way, at the school I went to we were in set classes for PE (Gym class for you Americans). I was in the second of four sets, meaning I was about of average to above average ability. But, I was then, overweight and quite unfit. But because I had the choice to play different sports than other people, I generally achieved much higher grades than I would have done, following the normal, unchanged curriculum.I would just like to clarify the notion too. You say Girls should not have to do the same exercise and Boys, but both you arguments are against Girls dropping out of lessons (and Boys). Is it not worth clarifying here and now, that when you mean Girls doing less sport than Boys, you merely mean Girls and Boys doing less sport than normal? Because in effect, what we both are arguing about it why a child of either gender should be able to abstain from a Gym class.You may post a rebuttal against my points again, but I believe that the last round is typically a summary rather than a rebuttal. In that respect I ask you to abstain from debating, but to summarise your debate for the audience to vote.

As soon as possible, in the coming years, all current standards must be abolished. "Lets look a bit closer at some of the following statements offered as proof of conspiracy and the will of supposedly evil Doctors to poison their patients. "The act of imprisoning patients causes an anxiety disorder. Although before incarceration a patient would not have an anxiety disorder he would succumb to one in a hospital. " No, just no. This is obviously wrong on so many levels. Patients are no prisoners or convicts as you imply. you just can't help but troll can you. .English, although not most used, is most abundant around the world. There are often many English courses available in schools with open seats. Google first comes up with, "Typical Woman Syndrome," "Tivoli Workload Schedule," and the "The Wildlife Society. " TWS is not a common acronym. The 1st is very sexist and of no meaning while the 2nd and 3rd too simply have no meaning. It is important to speak in a manner which is of understanding to the receiving party. For example very common acronyms and proper English. Forgive me I have no idea why you are talking about this, is it relevant somehow? "I understand the fact that formal permanent diagnoses is very stupid. "In some cases it is appropriate. ie Diabetes"These days, support for patients includes: arts and crafts"Nope you are thinking of the 1970's. Recovery focus does not mean arts & crafts. "The parents brought in a psychiatrist who declared the patient was having a psychotic episode. He was court ordered to take anti psychotics for a year. He is now still very ridden with physical health problems and is living in a homeless shelter. Is his treatment correct or should he be given better options? You decide. "How does this help your resolution. If anything you are pointing out why we need MORE treatment not less. "I know a child who was abused by his upper middle class parents his entire life. He was not permitted to learn to write nor make friends. The abuse was so bad his health failed and he could not survive on his own. His parents forced him to see a psychiatrist and take medicine. In a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona, I was witness to his major withdrawals from an incorrectly prescribed muscle relaxant. Death was a likely possibility to the patient. " Cool story bro. But seriously, suggesting we should abolish treatment for mental health because you knew a kid once for whom what you know of didn't go well. . "Mentally ill patients should not be left to suffer unavoidable circumstances and be given the opportunity, very often with pressure from abusers, to ingest poison. " Vulnerable people need more support. We know and do this already. This is not what you started out suggesting as your resolution. In fact quite the opposite. "If a wife does not understand why her husband cheats on her, parents abuse their child, students bully their classmate, should the unable victim be prescribed, like a drug addict, medications or should he be guided on what action to take and given assistance? "What has cheating wives got to do with anything ? More loaded arguments. "At this point through the fog and chemicals in his mind the patient exclaimed his parents were trying to murder him. "He sounds paranoid to me. Definitely in need of medication and support. But hey maybe they were trying to murder him? If you think that's the more likely answer. He was court ordered to take anti psychotics for a year. He is now still very ridden with physical health problems and is living in a homeless shelter. Is his treatment correct or should he be given better options? You decide. OK, I think you haven't given anywhere near the full story of that case and you have dramatised it to try and push your own agenda. I think all you care about is your agenda, not the well being of people suffering mental illnesses at all. I work with severely delusional people , they all have a way more realistic view of mental health services than the one you have put forwards. Please consider what you say to people as you can do great harm with your right wing ideation/ideology.

Response to your round 1:You are committing an Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy because you are arguing that a vegetarian diet is bad as it is "not even natural".You are committing a Strawman Fallacy because you are vastly distorting, exaggerating and misrepresenting my view. I clearly stated that this debate will be about a whether "a well-balanced vegetarian diet is generally to be preferred over a well-balanced omnivorous diet." therefore your claims that "Meat contains certain ingredients which simply cannot be found in a stick of celery." and "One cannot subsist on legumes alone." are irrelevant and misrepresenting my view as I've never claimed that a celery-only or legume-only diet are to be preferred over an omnivorous diet.Furthermore, it is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate [14].My first round:In this debate, I will be arguing that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is healthier, has a less significant negative impact on the environment and reduces the suffering and death of sentient lifeforms.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet:In a 1988 report, it was found that there is a significant positive association between meat consumption and mortality because of all causes of death combined, coronary heart disease, and diabetes. [1]In another 2007 study, it was found that there is a significant positive association between red and processed meat intake and risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas [2].In a 2003 meta-analysis, it was concluded that long-term (≥ 2 decades) adherence to a vegetarian diet can lead to a significant 3.6-year increase in life expectancy [3].As it can reasonably be assumed that everyone would generally prefer not to have cancer in one’s rectum (or anywhere else), cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is generally healthier, leads to a higher life expectancy and reduces one’s chances of getting cancer in one’s rectum.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet has a less significant negative impact on the environment:According to a 2017 study, livestock farming is responsible for at least 14.5% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is estimated to be responsible for at least 51% of global GHG emissions “based on the most complete and comprehensive analysis of all factors associated with livestock products (including emissions from the animals themselves and lost carbon sequestration from land clearing for feed production) estimates the sector's contribution to be at least 51 per cent of total global GHG emissions” [4],[5]. It is important to note, however, that even 14.5% is more than emissions from all transport combined [6].The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate positive changes to climate change [7].As it can reasonably be assumed that people generally have no intention of harming the environment and would prefer having a less significant influence on climate change, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet reduces the suffering and deaths of sentient lifeforms:In the same way that it is immoral to torture a cat (or any other animal) for the sake of viewing pleasure, it is immoral to eat a cat (or any other animal) for the sake of tasting its flesh. [16]Mylan Engel’s argument against eating meat [15]:(p1) Other things being equal, a world with less pain and suffering is better than a world with more pain and suffering.(p2) A world with less unnecessary suffering (suffering which serves no greater, outweighing justifying good) is better than a world with more unnecessary suffering.(p3) Even a minimally decent person (a person who does the very minimum required by morality and no more) would take steps to help reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the world, if they could do so with very little effort.(p4) Many nonhuman animals (certainly all vertebrates) are capable of feeling pain [9].(p5) Animals in the meat industry are suffering [10],[11],[12],[13].(p6) Refraining from eating meat and eating something else instead requires very little effort [14].(c) We ought to stop purchasing and consuming meat.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Overall, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is generally healthier, better for the environment and because the extended suffering animals endure outweigh the short pleasure of eating meat.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources:[1]: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 48, Issue 3, 1 September 1988, Pages 739–748,https://doi.org...[2]: Genkinger JM, Koushik A (2007) Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk. PLoS Med 4(12): e345. https://doi.org... [3]: Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE. Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-32S.[4]: Bogueva, Diana & Marinova, Dora & Raphaely, Talia. (2017). Reducing meat consumption: the case for social marketing. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 29. 10.1108/APJML-08-2016-0139.[5]: Goodland, R & Anhang, J. (2009). Livestock and climate change. World Watch. 22. 10-19.[6]: Ipcc.ch. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch... [Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].[7]: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lecture: ‘Global Warning - The impact of meat production and consumption on climate change’. September 2008[8]: Doug Gurian-Sherman, "CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (5.6 MB) , www.ucsusa.org, Apr. 2008[9]: National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. 1, Pain in Research Animals: General Principles and Considerations. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[10]: Joby Warrick, "They Die Piece by Piece: In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost," Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2001[11]: Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America" (7.2 MB) , www.ncifap.org, Apr. 28, 2008[12]: Humane Society of the United States, "Undercover at Smithfield Foods" (467 KB) , www.humanesociety.org (accessed Jan. 17, 2011) [13]: Farm Sanctuary, "The Welfare of Cattle in Beef Production" (700 KB) , www.farmsanctuary.org (accessed Jan. 17, 2011)[14]: Craig WJ, Mangels AR; American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.PubMed PMID: 19562864.[15]: Engel Jr, Mylan (2000). The Immorality of Eating Meat. _Chapter in The Moral Life_:856-889. https://philpapers.org... [16]: 2. Rationalwiki.org. (2018). Essay:Why You Shouldn't Eat Meat - RationalWiki. [online] Available at: https://rationalwik

Hey you big perfectly shaped molocko! You called me fat you Snort head. sup wi dat? 6' 200lbs, well built is your fatness sacrifice to your god? I have more muscle mass then you I bet, in sheer mass that is, not related to height, or whatever a legal definition of a fat person is. How would you define a fat person. My fat fingers are from hard work you split head.

I feel really sorry at this point, for I may have said things that may have hurt my opponents or even you the readers feelings in an attempt to provide for a humorous mind, if this is indeed the case and I have hurt your feelings then I ask for my sincere apologies to be accepted. I never really took the debate seriously, but did manage to muster up some points which I thought to be valid as the remaining Characters permitted for the first round were nearing an end. The thing that pleased me most about this debate was having the opportunity to exercise and share humour, I was more than pleased to hear that Brian (opponent) was "highly amused", and if you the reader shared in the humorous side of the debate, then I'm pleased for you also. I was tempted to call Brian a "Master debater", in relation to the way he projected his stance in the first round but wasn't sure if the funny side would be seen as intended. I'm especially pleased that some of the real Brian shone through in his second round contribution, it gave the impression of him being a really nice guy, which put me on a guilt trip. I learned a lot from participating in this, so I makes no difference how the voting goes, I just feel that we should treat people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, I don't get anything out of judging others, and also feel it's not my place to do so, therefor if ever I find myself in a position to surrender a seat to someone overweight, I will do in respect of this debate. My thanks to you again Brian, for posting the debate and I wish you well. I have nothing to contribute further as far as the debate goes, but plenty to offer society. Ps, have you ever wondered why, "a fat chance and a slim chance have the same meaning"?.

Purpose of Runway models Pro doesn't actually address this until round 4 so I have no choice but to rebut it now. It is not to be considered a "new" argument. I have mentioned as early as round 2 that the purpose of a model is to sell clothes and that the imposition of a maximum weight does nothing to further that goal. A) Pro brings up his assertion that if thin models can prevent nuclear warfare, then we should go with thinner models as the benefits of preventing nuclear warfare outweigh the harms of not selling clothes. The point that Pro misses are likelihood. The likelihood of models affecting nuclear war is negligible. The likelihood of them selling clothes is significant. For this reason the miniscule possible effects of nuclear war are in fact outweighed by the need to sell clothes. Besides I negated the point that it doesn't affect military strength. By extension, nuclear power is negated as well. B) Pro says that the "glory" of the modelling profession is destroyed. However, the practical benfits of allowing fatter people to model outweigh any "glory" that might be destroyed. What is so "glorious" about allowing only thin people to model? Seems more like a mean girl clique rather than a glorious endeavor.ARGUMENTS C1) Destroys business1. "If an obese person wishes to look thinner, would they be more likely to buy clothing advertised by a THIN person, or an OBESE person?" This is just flat out wrong! Obese people will want to know that they can look thinner, not that thin people can look thin. The clothing manufacturer can easily put the obese in a generic or in a competitor's clothing for a 'before' picture and in their own clothing for an 'after' picture, to show how much thinner they can look by wearing their clothing. That is the goal when selling to obese people; to show them that they can look thinner. Pro hasn't been able to negate this argument so it stands that lack of obese models will cause business to sink because it loses the obese 1/3 of the US population.2. "How is his world, with a societal acceptance of obesity superior to mine with a societal rejection of obesity?" I have already explained how ostracism causes more harm than good by causing psychological problems. 3. "What? If the clothes make a fat person LOOK skinny, how could the obese possibly tell if the person was actually fat or not?" Show the same person wearing a competitors clothing in a slideshow and show how this person now looks a lot thinner wearing that company's clothing.4. "Lives/health > Money. My impacts outweigh." No, it doesn't. The most important thing for the business is to sell clothes and make a profit, not to encourage people to pursue healthy lives. Should McDonalds remove its BigMacs and only sell Caesar salads in order to encourage people to live healthy? Everything that that business does must further the goal of making a profit. That is how businesses stay solvent and successful. C2) DiscriminationPro points out a case where the Supreme court allowed a private organization to deny membership to an individual. What Pro conveniently forgot to mention is that it was first taken to the New Jersey supreme court which actually ruled in favor of the plaintiff and against the organization. It was later taken to the US Supreme court. The legal fees required for a corporation to handle multiple lawsuits is very high. The obese will be lining up to take this company to court. Pro's assertion that the judge will laugh them out of court doesn't match his source which says that a lower court actually ruled against the corporation. It is a complicated issue and not one where a judge will laugh the plaintiffs out of court.C3) Self-Esteem & R3) HealthPointing out that it was adressed under a different heading is not a concession. It just means that Pro is supposed to read what is under that heading. I am going to combine my C3 with Pro's since they are essentially the same.Pro says that a rejection of obesity encourages health. I argued that it will create more problems than it solves assuming there is no de-facto weight limit. It creates psychological problems of depression and suicide due to ostracism and health problems like bulimia and anorexia.Pro says that my contention about Anorexia and other eating disorders is negated by the fact that there is already a de-facto limit. If Pro is correct in saying that there is in fact, a de-facto limit, then the benfits he gives about decreasing obesity are nullified as well because of this de-facto limit. At this point, the only contentions that stand are mine; the ones about destruction of business, lowered profits, declining consumer base, and legal problems that will arise as a result of descrimination. In fact Pro never adresses my point that a bad reputation will lead to even worse sales. I conclude this point by saying: If there is no de-facto limit, the health problems of imposing a maximum weight will be just much as the health problems due to obesity. If there is a de-facto limit, then the benefits of imposing a limit are nullified.REBUTTALSR1) Obesity discouragedExtend the lawsuit argument. People are not going to change just because some organization put a cap on the weight of models. If anything, they would take it up in court. (i) World HungerPro admits that his advantage is a fleeting short-term, one-time advantage. This is the same as admitting that there is no long term advantage because I brought that point up and Pro didn't adress it."There are more significant things than selling clothes. Like saving lives."Actually that is not true. The purpose of any business is to stay solvent and make a profit. The interests of the business come before charity. You can't give what you don't have. (ii) Hegemony"1/3rd of our population is unfit to aid in a total war"1% of the population serves in the military counting both active and reserve personnel and is the most powerful military in the world. The health of the fattest 1/3 of the population is irrelevant to military.Nuclear war impact is negligible. Pro doesn't really argue this point. he just throws it out there saying that a more powerful US military will decrease nuclear proliferation. When I proved that the power of the US military is unaffected, the point about nuclear proliferation has been negated as well.(iii) Economics Pro basically conceded that the economy is too complex. He drops all my arguments and simply repeats what I already refuted in round 3. R2) Sexual Deviance Pro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give their profits to the porn industry. Runway-models are supposed to sell clothes, not root out "sexual deviance." This point is irrelevant and Pro never even explains why being in the minority is a bad thing. He calls it "deviance" and says that "deviance" is bad. But if he defines "deviance" simply as being in the minority, then why must it be rooted out? R4) Beauty "It doesnt matter if those who thought the obese were attractive were successful, their society is lower than ours on the evolutionary scale so we have to default to our perception."Just an opinion. No facts to back it up. No logical analysis as to why such an opinion is correct. He never answers the questions: If the ancient people were successful in defending their perception of beauty, wouldn't fat people be considered beautiful today? Why must our perception of beauty be defended? Conclusion Every single one of Con's points rely on highly unlikely scenarios that runway models have a miniscule chance of affecting such as military recruitment, nuclear warfare, and US Hegemony. My points directly address the goal of runway models: to sell clothes. His points about positive health effects are balanced by my negative health effects if no de-facto limit exists, and are nullified if a de-facto limit does exist. At this point, you can vote off of my contention that imposing a maximum weight reduces sales and therefore it should not be done.

To compare childhood obesity to child abuse is preposterous. In contradiction to my opponent's views, it is unfair to dictate how a child lives his or her life. Rather than hounding children about what they eat and how much they weigh, we should be encouraging them to feel confident in his or herself. It is agreeable that no, children don't always choose what they would like to eat, some times there are simply no other options. I, myself always being on the go as a child, am aware of the strain it puts on a family. It isn't always possible to sit down at a table and eat a nice, healthy dinner. Not only is it cheaper, but it is also easier to grab something on the go. In opposition of comparing childhood obesity to abuse, we should be making families aware of the dangers of constantly eating unhealthy. And since there are not always alternative options, if it is necessary to eat unhealthy - it should be eaten in moderation. For example, rather than ordering a twenty piece chicken nugget with a large soda and a large fry, perhaps an alternative should be a 6 piece chicken nugget, small fry, and a water. It doesn't matter how hard someone tries to instill good habits in a child, if the child is not motivated it will not happen. Perhaps it would be better to encourage a mandatory physical education class. As my opponent stated, "The fat kid will be teased" because "students will bully him because of his weight." Rather than worrying about this child's weight, we should be concerned with the school. If the school is allowing children to bully one another over something as trivial as weight, then we evidently have a bigger issue on hand. The school should be worried about making both children and their parents aware of bullying issues rather than a child's weight. And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter? Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion

My opponent is clearly a gentleman and has accepted that one's weight is largely within one's own control. In view of this, I am willing, as a sportsman, to accept that, nevertheless, certain individuals are more liable to gain weight than others, even given the same diet and exercise regime. However, I cannot accept that allowing airlines to charge according to the combined weight of the passenger and their baggage amounts to discrimination. Discrimination is based on prejudice, whereas requiring passengers to pay the full cost of their transportation is an economic policy that also happens to be morally sound. Therefore, my opponent's dissection of the debate into two possibilities represents a false dichotomy. Now, have you ever been to the island of Barra in the Outer Hebrides on the west coast of Scotland? It's very nice. If you like azure blue seas and white sand beaches and don't mind the cold too much, I'd recommend it. There are two ways to reach the island: ferry and plane (nervous flyers may prefer to travel by ship as Barra does not have a runway so the plane has to land on the beach – it is the only scheduled service in the world to do this). http://www.youtube.com... http://www.calmac.co.uk... http://www.hial.co.uk... Now let's consider the ferry operator's pro forma 2009 table of charges: Normal passenger - ï¿½31.00 Big, fat, ugly passenger - ï¿½62.00 Now that would be discrimination, because a passenger's weight (and indeed physical appearance) on a large ship has negligible effect on the fuel consumption of the vessel. And now let's consider the airline's pro forma 2009 fare display: Normal passenger - ï¿½77.00 incl. taxes and charges Big, fat, ugly passenger - ï¿½144.00 incl. taxes and charges. That would be discrimination as well, but what if the fares were the same for all adult passengers but the airline's conditions of carriage read: "Maximum free weight allowance for passenger and baggage combined is 212lb. Excess weight is charged at 1.5% of the full economy one way fare per lb or part thereof." There's nothing discriminatory about that, is there? It's not as if I am suggesting that airlines should replace first and economy class cabins with normal and fat class cabins (although, since most people prefer to sit at the front of the aircraft, this arrangement would help weight distribution). In the final analysis, airlines are commercial enterprises, not charities whereby normal people are obliged to give donations to people afflicted by slow metabolisms. Therefore, the IATA regulations that prevent scheduled carriers from charging for the weight of the passenger and their luggage combined should be revised. Thank you.

As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the "obesity problem" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.


Question: Do E-Voting Machines Enhance the Voting Procedure?

Reliability Concerns

Electronic voting machines do not necessarily improve the voting process due to their unreliability. Experts warn that these machines are susceptible to manipulation by hackers, software glitches, or power failures that could either erase or alter voting data[1]. Even if the machines are politically neutral, they can still be exploited by human malefactors or experience technical malfunctions. For instance, electronic voting errors caused nearly 2 million votes to be invalidated in the 2000 US election[2]. Electronic voting systems require extensive refinement before they can be considered a viable solution to the issues associated with manual vote counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11

By refusing to contend the points I have made, Pro concedes. Happy voting :)

Since my opponent wants me to "present my case", my first argument will be in this round. To be fair to my opponent, I will skip the last round to keep equal debating rounds. If I am wrong, please tell me. I. Unequal Attention to Swing States "They [candidates] spend time in large "swing states," or states where the outcome is uncertain. Almost all small states are ignored. "[1] Why? Because smaller states have fewer delegates. In addition, it is easier to sway swing states than it is in one-party states. Swing states will define a presidential election. "Due to the unit rule, competitive big states have far more electoral votes in play, meaning that a shift of 1,000 votes in a big state can result in a far greater gain in electoral votes than a comparable swing of 1,000 votes in a small state. "[2] If California and Wyoming are swing states, California will be worth 18 times more, ergo they campaign in California, and never Wyoming. So even if small states are swing states, they still won't be visited. "Of the 18 states with the smallest populations, 10 experienced absolutely no television ads or candidate visits with public events during the peak season of 2008 campaigns. Eleven of the 12 smallest states did not have a single campaign visit. "[2] As shown, smaller states receive little, if any attention. II. A Minority-Vote President "The Electoral College system can result in the election of a "minority" president who has received fewer popular votes than a principal opponent but more electoral college votes. The Electoral College system has in the past led to the election of three "minority" presidents, namely, National Republican John Quincy Adams in 1824, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1888. "[3] The Electoral College can elect a popular-minority president. Simple math can be used to show how if necessary. ï¿½"'If 60,000 votes had switched from Bush to [Sen. John] Kerry in Ohio, Kerry would have won the election, even though Bush would have had a majority of the vote,' by 2.5 million votes. "[1] There have also been several close calls. That's a 2.5 million people swing. That can really change the vote. Sources: [1]:. http://www.christianpost.com... [2]:. http://www.fairvote.org... [3]:. http://www.elections.alaska.gov...

I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply "vote", which means, according to Merriam Webster, "the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc." 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.

Better. But, I completely disagree with your opinion that theft is the only alternative to a handout, and inevitable. What ever happened to hard work? Did that option elude you? Of course, many people would, and do, wish they could just take what they'd like from their "more fortunate" fellow citizens. But they do not. That would require too much nerve, as I demonstrated in my previous examples. But once concealed behind the curtain of the voting booth, there is nothing to fear. Voters are free to enlist their government to commit these exact same injustices. And, as I claimed in my opening statement, many vote to do so.

First thanks for admitting that voter fraud isn't an issue, that saves the both of us time. However, the debate is not about the "fairness" of how much one needs to pay for the license or voting inside your home. (Just to add, although the license costs only 10 dollars, documents such as birth certificate and other forms of identification are required which can cost around 200 dollars and upwards). Voting is a constitutional right (unlike "alcholol or cigs") given to us by our constitution and it should be treated as such (unless in extreme circumstances such as a mentally challenged person). Conservatives make it sound more of a privledge than a right, of course they never seem to fond of rights or the constitution. Infact, the reason most conservatives (the proponents of photo ID) are arguing in favor of such action because it helps their vote. Lets think about who this law will affect 1. Elderly people without licenses 2. People who live in cities who have public transportation 3. Poverty stricken individuals who can't afford a car, the insurance, gas etc. These people are all KEY voting blocks for the Democratic party. Photo ID is just another scheme to exclude the minority vote in order to keep old rich white people in power (I am saying this as an upper middle class white person). As we speak, (or type) courts are declaring these laws unconstitional. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://dor.mo.gov... Besides, with voter turnout as horrible as it is in the U.S. do we really need to provide one more obstacle for people to vote?

My opponent opened up with a quote, and I coincidentally have decided to do the same. My opponent quoted FDR, but I will quote a much lesser known politician. His name was Marc Morial and he served as the 59th mayor of New Orleans. "We must continue to have voting rights in the state, not to politicize this, but they must have a voice in the rebuilding effort in the community from which they have been displaced. " . http://www.brainyquote.com... What does this mean other than that we should expand voting rights? I think it means that the people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country. Five states have strict voter ID laws and many more have laws where ID is requested. Voter ID laws are a violation of civil liberties and should not be put in place anywhere. How can we call ourselves the land of the free if we require voter ID laws? . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.usnews.com... . https://www.aclu.org... Another huge problem that currently exists in our voting system is felony disenfranchisement. That's right. If you are a convicted felon in this country, you lose your voting rights (usually for life). Of course, this has racist outcomes as well. Felony disenfranchisement was originally put in place in the south in order to silence the voices of black voters. It was and still is much easier to convict poor people (usually poor and black people) and so once they got out of prison, they couldn't vote, and they still can't. Poll taxes were also used for this same racist intention. We should constitutionally restore voting rights to all. . http://www.nytimes.com... Now I shall move on to my legal argument. Now, there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing voting rights to all, but there are several steps that we have to add on to. Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point. Now for a moral argument. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " Notice he didn't say that our lives begin to end the day that educated people become silent. He said we, as in all people. I know this because M. L. K. gave his life for civil rights and voting rights. He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights? I await my opponent's rebuttals.

New election system: - Each mentally able adult citizen(in further text: MAAC) has 1 electing point - Each MAAC can give his election point(s) to any other MAAC during the non-voting period. - Everyone can see to whom every individual gave election point(s), on the official website. - Each MAAC can take away same number of election points from MAAC that he previously gave his election points to, during the non-voting period. - Each MAAC that has over 150 election points may vote on suggestions of new laws and suggestions of removing old laws and suggestions of changing laws(in further text: altering laws), during the voting period. - Everyone can see how MACCs with voting right voted, on official website. - Only congressman can suggest altering laws. - Congressmen election is done every 3 months. Simply, 535 MAAC's with the most election points at the end of election time become congressman. - President election is done every year, simply, the guy with most votes of congressmen wins. There are much more details, but I think I named all important stuff. Here is why this system is better: - It is cheaper - It is much more harder to bribe voters - People can change their representative, if he is not doing as they like Why term limits are not welcome: - If people consider someone to be the best person who represents their interest the best, then that person should. - If someone was voting for bad altering laws, people can take their election points back. Person will only have his term again if people who elected him are satisfied.

When voting:Conduct: MeCon concedesS & G: Me NacArguments: MePooSources: MeGibberish..............

I'll start with an overview of the case and conclude with rebuttals. I'll show exactly why, if my sources are correct (and they are), Wylted cannot win this debate.== Overview ==Wylted has dropped almost every piece of evidence I offered. He briefly contested the News 21 study in Round 2, but dropped it in Round 3, as well as dropping the rest of my sources throughout (note: Wylted mentions [1], [5], and [6] but doesn't argue them). At this point, my uncontested evidence must be taken as true; Wylted cannot argue the evidence anymore because I won't be able to rebut what he says. This dooms Wylted's entire case.Suppression. The argument here is simple: photo ID laws impose a severe burden on voting by increasing the cost of voting. For low-income individuals, this cost is up to $175. [8] The impact: when the cost of voting increases, voter turnout decreases. Wylted drops this argument in its entirety. I supported this argument with multiple studies, including the unbiased GAO report discussed in Round 3. [7] Wylted also drops my "voting is a low reward activity" argument (see Round 2 and 3 for elaboration). The impact: even a small cost depresses voter turnout. These arguments -- especially when taken together -- weigh heavily against photo ID laws.NOTE: Wylted abandons his "provisional ballots," "reasonable accommodations," and "absenteee ballots" argument (i.e. he drops my rebuttal in Round 3), so those arguments carry no impact.Fraud. There is virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud. I cited multiple studies which show that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare (e.g. the News 21 study says 0.5% of voter fraud is in-person voter fraud). Wylted also drops key arguments here. First, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is the "most likely type of fraud to be discovered" (this point is discussed in the EAC report). [16] Second, Wylted drops my argument that in-person voter fraud is an inefficient and irrational way to influence an election (i.e. it's costly, difficult to coordinate, the easiest type of fraud to detect, and imposes heavy punishments). Finally, Wylted drops my argument on public perceptions of voting fraud (see section on Voting Integrity from Round 3). I discuss Wylted's "fraud is hard to detect" argument below.== Rebuttal == (1) Wylted wrote: "The study linked to does indeed show that number. What my opponent fails to show is how many of those 21 million people can still easily vote, with their military ID, government or employer ID, school ID, certificate of live birth, passports and several other methods that escape me at the moment."Wylted's statement is utter nonsense. The study says: "11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification.” [1] The term "government-issued photo identification" includes all forms of ID relevant to this debate. The debate isn't about whether to require an identification document (e.g. a birth certificate). The debate is about whether to require a "government-issued photo ID." The study speaks directly to that issue. Wylted's attempt to discredit the study's impact simply has no bearing or relevance to this debate.(2) Wylted quotes this from [5]: "Voter identification requirements alone do not determine turnout. Multivariate models that take into account other predictors of voting can paint a more complete picture between voter identification requirents and turnout" (emphasis mine).The first sentence in this statement says photo ID laws affect voter turnout. Of course, other factors also affect voter turnout. So what? The study concludes: "The results presented here provide evidence that as voter identification requirements vary, voter turnout does as well....The overall effect for all registered voters was...statistically significant....It appears that stringent requirements can reduce turnout."(3) Wylted quotes this -- "[t]he district court found that the law placed no significant burden on the right to vote" -- from [6] and then claims "[e]ven my opponent's citations, support my position."Wylted's quote mining. The article states: "This Essay surveys the voter ID controversy and describes original empirical research finding ID laws to have a negative impact on voter turnout." Yes, the study notes that some courts have upheld photo ID laws, but the entire study was about those courts being wrong. The mere fact that the study "surveys the voter ID controversy" doesn't mean the study agrees with the courts that have upheld the laws. Contrary to Wylted's claim, the "citation" clearly found that photo ID laws depress voter turnout.(4) Wylted wrote: "I don't know where my opponent is getting his stats, but my ID cost me $20. In Indiana where they have voter ID laws, they made state issued ID's free for those who couldn't afford them."First, I'm not sure how Wylted doesn't know where the stats come from, since I've meticulously cited them throughout the debate. The stats come from the GAO report and from a study published by the Institute for Race & Justice at Harvard Law School. [7] [8] I cited both in Round 2 and discussed them again in Round 3. Second, $20 is a severe burden for some low-income voters, and it's certainly enough of a burden to influence turnout, because of the perception that voting is a low-reward activity (i.e. even a small cost lowers turnout). Third, just because a state-issued ID is free doesn't mean obtaining the ID is free. Voters must still pay for underlying documentation (e.g. birth certificates), travel and transportation costs, and waiting time (often having to take off work). I explained this in Round 2, but Wylted ignored that argument (i.e. pretends I never made it).(5) Relying on "Occam's Razor," Wylted says in-person voter fraud happens frequently because voter fraud is hard to detect.Occam's razor is the idea that "among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Wylted's argument -- or rather, narrative -- requires more assumptions than mine, so under occam's razor, prefer mine. Wylted's argument rests on at least 4 or 5 assumptions. Wylted names some of them in his argument: (1) the idea that politicians will do anything they can get away with; (2) the idea that in-person voter fraud is harder to detect than other types of fraud (which is wrong as noted in [16]); (3) the idea that in-person voter fraud is economically feasible (it's not); (4) lack of evidence is irrelevant (also false). The number of assumptions underlying Wylted's position make occam's razor inapplicable. The argument I make rests on a single assumption: If there's no evidence of something, it's probably rare. If anything, occam's razor applies to my position, not Wylted's. The problems with Wylted's argument don't stop there. First, in-person voter fraud is the easiest type of voter fraud to detect. I made this argument in Round 2 and 3, and Wylted ignores it entirely. Wylted cannot argue this point now because I'd have no chance to rebut it. There's simply no reason politicians would use in-person voter fraud when other types of fraud are much harder to detect. Again, under occam's razor, politicians are going to choose the cheapest, least difficult to orchestrate, and hardest type of voter fraud to detect. I explained earlier that in-person voter fraud is not the cheapest, it's inefficient, it's difficult to coordinate and bribe thousands of voters, and it's the easiest to detect. Occam's razor suggests that in-person voter fraud simply isn't how politicians would go about influencing an election. This is especially so because of the heavy punishments that attach to in-person voter fraud. Second, in-person voter fraud requires a massive campaight by politicians. Wylted says politicians will engage in in-person voter fraud because it's difficult to detet, but that ignores the practical difficulty of orchestrating a massive campaign. The reason a massive campaign is necessary is because you can't influence an election with one vote. Politicians need to coordinate and bribe thousands upon thousands of voters. Occam's razor suggests that politicians won't go through that trouble, not only because of the complexity, but also because of the economics (it's simply too expensive). Think about how much each person would charge to break the law and face the risks of detected. Consider the risks: if even a single one of these thousands of people is caught, the entire scheme falls apart. The logistiscs are simly so complex and impractical, not to mention how inefficient in-person voter fraud is at influencing an election.I offered a study on these very points in Round 2 and 3 -- the EAC report -- which talks about all these practical difficulties with in-person voter fraud. The study makes the opposite argument that Wylted's making: It's simply so complex, impractical, inefficient, and expensive that politicians are going to choose other forms of voter fraud to influence an election. I also cited a study on public perceptions of voting fraud, which suggests that in-person voter fraud simply doesn't happen, for reasons relatating to public perceptions of it.Third, there's an easy solution to the kind of in-person voter fraud (using dead people's names) that Wylted talks about: update the voter rolls. That solution won't suppress voters. Wylted's given no reason why we can't do that instead of photo ID laws.== Conclusion ==Wylted cannot in this debate with the arguments he's made. He's dropped almost all my evidence. He's banked his entire case on the idea that in-person voter fraud is hard to detect so therefore it's happening frequently. But as I've shown, there's a number of other reasons why in-person voter fraud doesn't happen (e.g. practical issues orchestrating it). I've also shown that photo ID laws suppress a significant number of votes. The net effect of these laws is to suppress voters.

First, photo ID is not expensive. It's like, 10 bucks. And you don't need to have a driver's license, you can just get a photo ID [at the DMV]. So what's the argument against this? That people shouldn't be forced to go through the trouble of paying 10 bucks and getting a photo ID. It's "unfair." Know what else is unfair? That you have to leave your house to vote. I mean, come on, all those hermits are being excluded from the voting process. You have to PAY to get transportation to wherever you're voting at, unless you're within walking distance. What about people who don't have a couple bucks? They get excluded! You have to SPEND TIME walking/driving/riding there. What about all those people who don't have time? They get excluded! What a serious problem this is! This is VOTING we're talking about, people shouldn't have to go through ANY trouble at all to do it, right? Oh. Or maybe, it's OK for the government to force us to go through a little bit of trouble. Since it fixes a problem, why not add Photo ID as one of the many requirements? I'll admit, voter fraud is not a huge issue. There aren't swarms of illegals/etc voting because of it. But those that do are being allowed to abuse the system. See, that's not how we do things. We don't even let our ordinary legal citizens abuse the system like that. Photo ID fixes this, and it's a very minor thing for peple to get. People who are too lazy to go get one are the same people who are too lazy to vote in the first place. People are already required to have photo ID's to buy alcohol or cigs, so why not to vote?


Question: Do E-Voting Machines Enhance the Voting Procedure?

Electronic voting systems are susceptible to manipulation and deceit. Despite our growing confidence in online security, where individuals feel secure enough to entrust their most critical information, such as banking details, to the internet – why should we not extend the same trust to our voting systems? The development of secure software and encryption techniques has facilitated the growth of online marketplaces, with companies like PayPal instilling a sense of safety among their users. Any software designed for remote electronic voting could undergo rigorous examination beforehand. Moreover, it could eliminate the risk of identity fraud, which is a concern with existing postal voting procedures. Every voter could be provided with a unique password, possibly in conjunction with a special swipe card, ensuring that each eligible voter casts a single vote. Considering that in numerous jurisdictions, traditional polling places do not mandate voters to present identification, electronic voting could arguably enhance security compared to the current practices.

"Note: Private messages between members is irrelevent to a debate. " I was simply stating the subject of this debate "In the second round of debate Con offers no argument of his own. He seems content to merely rebut my points without offering an alternative plan to the Electoral College. Offering an alternative is essential if Con hopes to be competitive in this debate and should offer one in the final round. " I realize my error in the last argument. My alternative is eliminating the "winner-take-all" aspect of the Electoral College. This means that states may divide their Electoral Vtes between different candidates. This means that smaller states still have representation and means that no votes are lost. I also believe all electors shoould be pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. I think we should also eliminate the maximum number of seats in the house. By destroying this limit, it lets all states be equally represented. "1. The Election of 2008 provides evidence to the contrary. States that are supposedly firmly in Republican hands voted in favor of the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. These include, but are not limited to North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Indiana. These states not only did not go overlooked, but they ultimately voted against 'their' party. Obviously for this to occur, the democrats did not ignore the largely Republican states. Nor did the republicans, who scrambled to win back their support. " I realize this, but my point still stands. Neither of the candidates campaigned in wyoming ( a highly Republican state) or Washington D. C. (a highly Democratic city). Though the states you mention defied their historcal voting records, they did not defy the polls. "2. It is odd that Con would reverse course and support a "weighted popular vote" despite opposing the Electoral College because it gives the vote of some states more weight than others. Why complicate the electoral system if it is to be replaced with the very same concepts? The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies in this case. " I didn't say I supported weighted Popular Vote, I said there are systems where states are adequetley represernted. "3. This would apply to the nation as a whole, even if there were a popular vote. Under either system there will necessarily be a losing side. By this logic, all people voting for the losing candidate have wasted their time and their vote was worthless. Clearly this is not a compelling reason to reform the system, because there is no plausible way to eliminate the existence of a losing candidate in a free election short of electing all candidates or instituting a one-party system. " The system I offered above makes a vote in any individual state count for something. This means that if you vote for the losing candidate in your state, they might still get Electoral Votes. "4. This is simply not true. There would be unintended effects on the Electoral College as a result of conducting the census more often, but the system would still remain the same. " I think we just agree on this issue. "5. Con has offered no sources and provides no evidence to support this claim. Until he does so we cannot suppose his claim to be true that representatives cannot be trusted to reflect their consituency. The same is true for bribery. I predict he will cite the 1824 election. However, historians have yet to produce enough evidence to prove there was bribery or any sort of "corrupt bargain. " I don't expect Con will be able to do what longtime historians have yet to be able to do. Without evidence that bribery and corrupt representatives is the norm, this is not a valid argument in favor of taking the tie breaking duty from the House of Representatives. " Although I do think there was corruption in the 1824 election, A better example of this is What might happen in the future. Already we see a bitter battle between Republicans and Democrats, if they decide the president, none of the votes will matter, and the representatives will not reflect the votes of the nation. For those who don't know, in 1824, No one recieved a majority of votes. So the election was decided by the House Of Representatives. Then after Speaker of the House Henry Clay supported John Quincy Adams, he easily became president, even after winning the Popular vote or the most Electoral Votes. Adams then Mae Clay the Secretary of State. The Electoral College was flawed, so with a minority of the popular and Electoral Vote. By pledging all the electors tie situations are less likely. 6. This point does not even make sense, and is a blatant attempt at reversing his original position. He originally said >>>"In Wyoming citizens have more inffluence on the Electoral College by a margain of 4 to 1 (. http://www.fairvote.org.........) this leads to cititzens in certain states have more "power" than others. "<<< Here he is saying that Wyoming citizens have a more powerful representation than other states. This point is clear by his source (which he misquoted) that says Wyoming citizens have four times more power than Texas citizens. This point I have addressed and Con has not rebutted. His new position makes even less sense. He claims that some citizens have more power within "THEIR STATE's popular vote. " This is simply untrue and unfounded. He offers no evidence or support for this point. I realize my wording was bad. I meant that Wyoming has an elector for every 165,000 people while Texas has an elector for every 652,000 people. This means they are exxtremely overrepresented. I know my wording was VERY bad and confusing.

By refusing to contend the points I have made, Pro concedes. Happy voting :)

Based on the inadequate responses of Pro, I urge voters to give a complete 7 point vote in favor of Con.

Democracy is built upon four key elements In Famous’ round, he introduced the concept that democracy consists of four key elements. He argues that compulsory voting violates two of these elements. I will address each in turn. 1: Does compulsory voting conflict with “Free and Fair Elections?” My opponent claims that because democracy is “built upon a political system… through free and fair elections” that compulsory voting violates the “free” aspect. In addition to being a puerile way to apply freedom; the idea that compulsory voting attacks “free elections” is to misunderstand the concept itself. When “free” is applied to elections, it is typically applied to the idea that an election is “open.” Meaning the electorate is both able to participate and free to choose who to elect. For example; voting is not restricted based on ethnic, economic, or educational factors. Free elections means open to the people. Famous agreed that low voter turnout is undesirable, but claims people “have very valid reason for not voting.” As I see it, he gives three reasons, none of which I find convincing. First, he argues, many are undecided and making them vote will essentially make their votes random. This is a simple fix, all we have to do is allow people to check a box indicating “undecided” so that their vote is counted and are still free to abstain. This solution also solves his second worry, specifically that making people vote will cause them to vote for someone they don’t want. This is nonsense. They merely select “none of the above” or write in who they would prefer. Nothing about compulsory voting limits who the voters may select in their vote. Finally, he argues that people do not care about their vote. Again, this is easily solved by allowing them to select “none of the above.” Next, my opponent argues about bandwagoning. The issue with this contention is simply illustrated by the reality that “bandwagoning” is an issue with or without compulsory voting and thus does nothing to reject the resolution. Rejecting the resolution does not prevent bandwagoning, and supporting it does not result in bandwagoning. The purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for, rather to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted. Thus, none of these concerns address compulsory voting directly. It should be clear at this point that Compulsory voting does not conflict with free and fair elections. 2: Does Compulsory voting conflict with human rights? My opponent argues that forcing people to vote results in loss of freedom and effectively makes slaves out of the electorate. This is ludicrous. As explained above, compulsory voting does not result in a loss of freedom, but rather ensures that every vote is counted. Put another way, rather than negatively impacting your freedom, compulsory ensures it. Aside from this, the idea that compulsory voting equals slavery is asinine. The United Nation does not view compulsory voting as a violation of human rights in spite of my opponent attempting to cite them as doing so. Several members of the United Nations have compulsory voting laws, for example, Australia. Cleary compulsory voting does not conflict with human rights. 3: Compulsory voting increases participation in civic life. Now that I have responded to my opponent’s objections, I will now address the elephant in the room. One of the four so called key elements that democracy is made of articulates why compulsory voting ought to be implemented. “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;” is a key element of Democracy. As demonstrated by my arguments compulsory voting ensures this element. Conclusion My opponent’s arguments are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. I have shown it does not. Conversely we see that compulsory voting does help ensure the third key element. Namely, “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.”

So, in this round I will address Con's remarks, and then provide feedback to Con as Con requested. I hope my feedback is useful. REBUTTAL V: Con says that we should have only the educated vote. But under the concept of free speech, even foolish people can express themselves. In other words, unless Con is going to physically barricade the polls, administer IQ or knowledge tests to potential voters and so forth, then idiots will always vote. To take those steps necessary to prevent the uneducated from casting a ballot would necessarily require an infringement of free speech rights. Furthermore, the Lisa Hill evidence shows that even under a compulsory voting regime, the impact of "donkey votes," including uneducated, blank, and deliberately faulty ballots, is so small that it does not "pollute the polls." Therefore, Con's concerns are baseless. C: Con never warrants why compulsory voting will boost polarization, whereas the entirety of my second contention explains the link between CV and eliminating polarization. C1: Polarization does exist now. A perfect example would be the "defund Obamacare" movement which has brought the government to a standstill. Extend all my other arguments and my attacks against Con's case. They go untouched by Con; Con has no offense on which to vote Con. This means, in terms of impacts, that CV solves for polarization, which in turn achieves our agreed upon value of democracy. Thanks, and please affirm. FEEDBACK Okay, so here are my thoughts. I think you need more research to bolster you arguments. You have a nice foundation in your NC, but you need to find more warrants to further substantiate your claims. Also, it is useful to have some sources which you don't include in your cases, because these sources might come in handy rebutting your opponent. A good example of this was my use of the Lisa Hill card. In your rebuttals, you should try and hit every point, and make sure to be especially vigorous in defense of you own case. Your rebuttal did not defend your own case, nor did it address all the points in my case. And, when you make arguments in rebuttal, always be sure to explain why they are true. For example, you said that compulsory voting won't reduce polarization--why is that correct? Warrant your claims. When attacking a V or C, I always try and do four things: (1) Delink it--explain why my opponent is not achieving his or her Value or Criterion, and/or explaining why a criterion isn't linking to the value. For example, I explained that your V/C relationship was circular--that if the V and C are the same thing, one cannot augment the other, because they're the same. (2) Encompass it--explain why my value or criterion includes and goes beyond my opponent's. I did this by saying that "freedom of speech" was subset of my own value, democracy. (3) Link into it--explain why, even if a judge doesn't buy my value or criterion, how I can still win because I can link into my opponent's V/C framework. (4) Attack it--explain why the value or criterion is fallacious. I did this with my argument about shouting fire in a theatre and with my last two points in response to your criterion. DELA--it's worked for me in several debates. Sometimes not all of these techniques work, and sometimes you don't have time to do all four of these thing, but if you can do at least two of them, you should be good. It's a nice formula to help get you started. Make sure you also impact your arguments; i.e., explain what relevance they have in terms of the V and C. All your contentions and extensions should be connected back to your V/C framework. Try to make at least one attack against each sub-point, that way I can't extend them. Be comprehensive and thorough. If you have any specific questions, just post a comment or message me. I hope I helped!

As Con, I will argue that it is not net beneficial to have this extra point system. In comparing the current system and Pro's proposed system, the current system is more beneficial. C1. The current voting system is currently the ideal system The current voting system contains a maximum of 7 points to be given. This system is simple, effective, and mostly fair. This system is set up to discourage abuse of voting while still establishing a manner in how the debate was won. What I mean is that important issues regarding sources, conduct, and grammar are also emphasized while the system still maintains a sense of order. I. The "best argument" issue is presented with 3 points giving it the most power by itself. However, it is recognized that a debater may still lose the debate despite having the best argument. If a debater acts unfairly, rudely, has awful grammar, plagiarizes, forfeits rounds, and/or fails to cite sources, the debater may not deserve a win despite his or her arguments. Because Pro's extra point system is dependent on who has the better argument and would give the most power to the better argument, this would significantly weaken the ability of the other votes. II. The current voting system, while not absent of misuse, prevents excessive abuse. The "best argument" vote is misused rarest, and thus it has the most points. The "sources" vote can often be misused since it is worth 2 points, but I argue it is necessary. A failure to cite sources can often be plagiarism, something that cannot be encouraged. The "conduct" vote is rarely misused but since conduct is not quite as important as the other issues, it is only worth a single point. The "spelling/grammar" vote is abused the most. However, it is only a single point and is quite necessary. In general, the votes in the current system are either necessary or seldom misused by voters. It is not necessary to add any other points to this system. C2. The proposed extra point system is not an ideal system With additional points come additional problems. Pro's system is begging to be abused by dishonest voters, which unfortunately are prevalent. Currently, there are only 3 points that are often misused on this site. The "spelling/grammar" and "sources" votes are responsible, yet still they are necessary. The new system would add a potential 2 points to the voting system which could easily be abused. That would mean 5 out of 9 points would potentially be misused. In other words, more than half of the points could be dishonestly given. This would mean "vote bombers" and the like could be even more dishonest then they already are. In a perfect world, your system may be ideal, however, such misuse is rampant especially on the internet. C3. The extra point system is unnecessary If it was necessary, then it would probably have been added already. Since it is unnecessary, and only allows more dishonesty, then the altered opinion vote should not be allowed any points.

Note: Private messages between members is irrelevent to a debate. In the second round of debate Con offers no argument of his own. He seems content to merely rebut my points without offering an alternative plan to the Electoral College. Offering an alternative is essential if Con hopes to be competitive in this debate and should offer one in the final round. Because Con offers no alternative, I will briefly outline and rebut his claims. ------------ Claims: 1. Largely Republican or Democratic states get overlooked in an election. 2. Suggests that the system could be reformed to a "weighted popular vote" so that the smaller states still receive the benefits of union. 3. The votes in a state for the losing candidate are "worthless, as they do not inffluence [sic] the election. " 4. Holding the census more often is a reform of the Electoral College. 5. Con claims that the election going to the House is bad because representatives rarely represent their consituency; and the election would be more susceptible to bribery. 6. "My final stement is that when I said some citizens have more power than others, I was simply saying that they have more inffluence on THEIR STATE's popular vote, not in the nation as a whole. " Rebuttals: 1. The Election of 2008 provides evidence to the contrary. States that are supposedly firmly in Republican hands voted in favor of the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. These include, but are not limited to North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Indiana. These states not only did not go overlooked, but they ultimately voted against 'their' party. Obviously for this to occur, the democrats did not ignore the largely Republican states. Nor did the republicans, who scrambled to win back their support. 2. It is odd that Con would reverse course and support a "weighted popular vote" despite opposing the Electoral College because it gives the vote of some states more weight than others. Why complicate the electoral system if it is to be replaced with the very same concepts? The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies in this case. 3. This would apply to the nation as a whole, even if there were a popular vote. Under either system there will necessarily be a losing side. By this logic, all people voting for the losing candidate have wasted their time and their vote was worthless. Clearly this is not a compelling reason to reform the system, because there is no plausible way to eliminate the existence of a losing candidate in a free election short of electing all candidates or instituting a one-party system. 4. This is simply not true. There would be unintended effects on the Electoral College as a result of conducting the census more often, but the system would still remain the same. 5. Con has offered no sources and provides no evidence to support this claim. Until he does so we cannot suppose his claim to be true that representatives cannot be trusted to reflect their consituency. The same is true for bribery. I predict he will cite the 1824 election. However, historians have yet to produce enough evidence to prove there was bribery or any sort of "corrupt bargain. " I don't expect Con will be able to do what longtime historians have yet to be able to do. Without evidence that bribery and corrupt representatives is the norm, this is not a valid argument in favor of taking the tie breaking duty from the House of Representatives. 6. This point does not even make sense, and is a blatant attempt at reversing his original position. He originally said >>>"In Wyoming citizens have more inffluence on the Electoral College by a margain of 4 to 1 (. http://www.fairvote.org......) this leads to cititzens in certain states have more "power" than others. "<<< Here he is saying that Wyoming citizens have a more powerful representation than other states. This point is clear by his source (which he misquoted) that says Wyoming citizens have four times more power than Texas citizens. This point I have addressed and Con has not rebutted. His new position makes even less sense. He claims that some citizens have more power within "THEIR STATE's popular vote. " This is simply untrue and unfounded. He offers no evidence or support for this point. ------- CONCLUSION Con has offered no compelling rebuttal to my argument that the Electoral College is necessary for the smaller states to enjoy the benefits of union. He has not challenged my claim that without the EC the smaller states would be dominated by the larger states. All he says is that the EC should be scrapped or it should be reformed, but he does not explain how or why. In the final round I challenge him to address my argument and to offer a viable alternative to the Electoral College.

I"d like to start off this debate with a quote from a . http://www.usnews.com... article entitled "The Electoral College Serves the Interests of All People" by Trent England, the vice president of policy at Freedom Foundation, "Americans are fortunate that through debate and compromise, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College. While it doesn't work exactly as the founding generation thought it might, it probably works better than they could have imagined. It doesn't tip the scales in favor of Democrats or Republicans"but instead serves the interests all the people. " Assertion 1:- Gives minorities a voice in the vote The Electoral College gives fair chances to racial minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics. Since these minorities tend to live in larger cities "of the bigger states, their votes are important in tilting all the electoral votes of their state, thus encouraging candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes. (1)" This makes all the races equally important to the candidate and he will look into minority interests. If there is no Electoral College candidates will only focus on the interests of the majority (White people) and minority needs won"t be satisfied. Assertion 2:- Might cause unfair play "A purely popular vote would encourage some states (particularly one-party states) to change their voting requirements to increase that state"s influence nationwide. For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or 16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote. (1)" "The benefits of the Electoral College come from the need to win state-by-state. This means candidates can't just go to their strongholds and drive up turnout"or stuff ballot boxes. The Electoral College makes candidates go to the most evenly divided parts of our country to make their case to those voters. Over time, this has made American political parties less extreme and more inclusive than they would have been without the Electoral College," says Trent England. Stuffing ballot boxes (putting in "extra votes") won"t work in the EC because states are designated a certain amount of points. Putting it all on one region or state won"t do much in the EC because you need the help of multiple states to win. Now, on to my refutations: My opponent"s 1st point about the EC being outdated makes no sense since the people still had to vote to the same sort of pledged electors that we do today making the argument about communication senseless since the circumstances for both the popular vote and the EC the same. The real reason why the EC was created was to protect the rights of the small states and encourage "moderation, compromise and coalition building. (3)" My opponent"s 2nd point states that minority groups are favored because of the EC. It is true that minorities get a bit more attention than they deserve, but if we switch to a popular vote the minority vote will not exist anymore and they will not be able to make their interests be satisfied. In the EC however, both Whites and minorities have a fair say and are able to get what they want. My opponent"s 3rd point is about haw votes disproportionate from area to area. It"s true that in the EC some states are made more important than others but if there is no EC Wyoming gets almost a zero value while candidates start doing the stuff mentioned in my second assertion in big states. Also, we should remember what will happen to minorities. Voters, I have proven that the EC is here to stay; vote con. Sources: (1). http://www.cato.org... (2). http://www.usnews.com... (3). http://www.aim.org...

Thanks, thett3.South ParkWhilst I do like South Park, I'm afraid its inclusion isn't helpful to the debate. Obviously, having compulsory voting does not entail that the punishment for not voting is to die. 'Vote or die' is therefore a hyperbolic strawman of my case.FrameworkCon postulates that individual rights and the common good are both important things to consider within a good democracy, and I agree to an extent. But I maintain that how democratic a democracy is remains an important factor that contributes to whether a democracy is good or bad.But I argue that compulsory voting is neither a violation of individual rights nor is it detrimental to the common good.CounterplanWhilst Con's plan would probably increase the voter turnout, which is a good thing, it would be extremely costly to implement. For the economic incentive to be compelling enough to increase the turnout, the tax credits would have to be in the region of at least $50 (even this value might not incentivize enough people). Considering that there are 218,959,000 eligible voters in the USA (1), and that we would want the voter turnout to increase to around 95%, that would cost the government $10.4 billion just for a single election! With that amount of money, around 5500 primary schools could be built (2) or 13 large teaching hospitals (3). Compulsory voting would cost far less - only requiring the law enforcement necessary to ensure that voting is indeed compulsory.In other words, Con's counterplan is worse than my plan because it fulfills the same role as my plan (increasing voter turnout) but costs far more. Considering how my plan doesn't involve any ethical problems either (I'll expand on this later), it is clear that Con's counterplan is inferior.Undemocratic?Con writes that, in the USA, the majority opposes compulsory voting and therefore it is supposedly undemocratic to enforce it. But this is incorrect, since it is possible for majority opinion to favour something that is undemocratic - the fact that the majority support or oppose X does not necessarily mean that X is either democratic or undemocratic respectively. For example, in the 18th century, it was probable (I cannot locate the exact statistics) that the majority of people supported denying women the right to vote. However, women's right to vote is democratic in principle, since it conforms to the democratic principle of all citizens being able to vote. The fact that in the 1700s the majority opposed it did not render it undemocratic.Regardless, Con's statistic only applies to the USA, I could easily respond by highlighting that the majority of Australians support compulsory voting (4). Why, I ask Con, should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?To summarise, just because something isn't supported by the majority, it doesn't mean it is undemocratic. Therefore I can maintain that compulsory voting is more democratic than optional voting despite it not garnering majority support.Con's second point is just fallacious. He presumes that, because I come from a first world country, I cannot argue in favour of changes in third world countries. Aside from this being a blatant ad hominem fallacy (whether I live in a first world or third world country is irrelevant to my arguments' veracity), it is a strawman argument. Just because I argue that compulsory voting ought to be the case in a democracy, that doesn't entail that I am 'dictating policy' - I am not advocating the forcible adoption of compulsory voting against a country's will, that would be ridiculous.Furthermore, advocating changes in other countries is often a justified stance. For example, I would advocate for the removal of the one-child policy in China; yet this stance isn't refuted by the accusation that it is 'blatantly neocolonialist' and that 'we don't get to decide for them', the only valid rebuttals would have to pertain to the moral status of the one child policy.Freedom of speech, religion and expressionCon states multiple concerns:1. There is a right not to speak2. People should be able to refrain from voting for moral reasons3. People should be able to express their disapproval of all candidates4. Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious obligation to remain politically neutralHowever, none of these are problematic. Why? Because one can still spoil their vote even if voting is compulsory. By spoiling one's vote, one has the ability to refrain from giving their opinion, express their moral opposition to voting, express their disapproval of all the candidates or, if one is a Jehovah's Witness, remain politically neutral.Therefore, none of Con's concerns harm my case for compulsory voting.On a side note, moral objections do not, by themselves, allow someone to be exempt from compulsory action. For example, someone may have a sincerely-held moral objection to paying tax, but this does not justify their tax evasion. Furthermore, someone may have a sincerely-held moral objection to acting as a juror, but this does not justify them avoiding jury duty. If Con's stance is to be consistent, then he would have to be against any policy that requires people to perform an action, since someone could have a sincerely held moral obligation against that action and, according to Con, such policies would therefore violate their rights. But clearly this logic would entail anarchy.Political educationThe principle of democracy is that every citizen is involved in the election of government, therefore the level of knowledge held by someone should have no affect on whether they should vote or not. Con imagines some arbitrary line between those who should vote and those who shouldn't vote (even if this line isn't enforced). But democracy is where all are involved in the political process, if we have a system where only the intelligent are voting, then this is an aristocracy, not a democracy - yet this debate pertains to democracy.It is an elitist notion that it is preferable for the less-educated to not voice their political stance, one that flies in the face of the egalitarian nature of democracy. It prompts us to ask: why should the more educated be given more political representation than the less educated?Anyhow, as I have argued in round 2, compulsory voting will most increase the amount of people who are politically educated - resolving the problem of political apathy and ignorance.ConclusionCompulsory voting is preferable to optional voting for the reasons detailed in round 2. Con says that this is undemocratic because the majority oppose it, but as demonstrated by the case of women's suffrage, something can still be democratic even if it isn't supported by the majority. Moreover, Con only gives a US statistic, but this debate isn't just about the US.Then Con proposes his counterplan, which turns out to be very expensive and has no advantages over compulsory voting.Next, he claims that compulsory voting would violate human rights, but I pointed out that one can still spoil their vote - avoiding all the problems raised by Con.Lastly, Con makes the elitist assertion that it is a preferable situation that the less-educated don't vote. But this is contrary to the principles of democracy (which make no mention of education). Secondly, making voting compulsory will actually help remedy the problem of political ignorance/apathy. (1) http://www.statisticbrain.com...(2) http://www.building.co.uk...(3) https://www.quora.com...

The anonymity of the voting booth is a powerful anesthesia for those who want to limit the freedoms of there fellow citizens and/or seize their property without consequence. It allows them to do so with no accountability whatsoever. Once they leave the voting booth they find themselves among fellow citizens who also hold their political views close to the vest. Society warns that it's not good manners to talk politics in public. Might shame have something to do with this phenomenon? As etiquette goes, it would be considered impolite to ask your neighbor how he voted, much less ask him to defend his vote. It's this cloak of anonymity that allows one to secretly vote to enlist his government to confiscate freedoms from his fellow Americans in ways he would never attempt on his own. For example, most people who would vote in favor of outlawing drugs would never dream of confiscating their neighbor's marijuana plants (even if they were assured of their safety). Most would sense that it was not their business as long as their neighbors weren't hurting anyone. Another example would be in the case of wealth redistribution. One would not dream of walking, palm out, up to a wealthy person saying "I'm underprivileged. Where's my cut?" or "That man over there doesn't work, and you're paying his rent this month." Although these actions sound absurd when carried out directly from one person to another, there is a way to accomplish them without having to justify them. Enter... the middle man. Ah the beauty of a democracy! In a democracy the voter is granted free reign to choose from a menu of injustices enumerated before him on the ballot (or in the campaign promises of his candidate). The kicker is this: the acceptance or rejection of these injustices will be based purely on popularity. No need to consult the gods of right or wrong. Just fill in the circle that promises the best outcome for you based on your personal biases and/or economic circumstances. Congratulations. You've accomplished, what you dare not do otherwise. And nobody has to know about it.