Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns?

Concealed carry versus open carry: the legal perspective. An individual may display a concealed firearm to intimidate a potential criminal. This action can serve as a deterrent, potentially preventing a criminal act from occurring. The debate around concealed carry versus open carry gun laws continues, with proponents of concealed carry arguing that it allows for a more discreet and strategic approach to self-defense.

I completely understand where you're coming from with the firearm definition.The other clarification that I would like to make is campus is High, Middle, and Elementary Schools.Constructive SpeechContention 1: InherencySchool shootings are tragic occurrences that have become far too common in our culture today by many standards. In light of some of the most recent events involving school shootings in Philadelphia, New Mexico and Colorado, as well as the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, some state legislators are considering a new approach to the problem: licenses that allow educators to carry concealed weapons onto campus. The first known school district to institute such a policy was the Harrold Independent School District in Harrold, Texas, but numerous other districts have followed suit in recent years, with other districts considering the possibility rather seriously. Contention 2: HarmsAccording to [1] since 2000 there have been 179 school shootings in the United States of America. The fact of the matter is that we as a country are allowing these killers to enter school and kill students. This harm is completely unacceptable. As a country we need to develop a plan that reduces these crimes. The Affirmative Plan Solves this.Plan:Plank 1: Madate: The United States should implement a plan in which all High School, Middle School, and Elementary School teachers will be required to know how to use and operate a handgun. This plan should also implement teachers taking a firearm saftey course.Plank 2: Mechanism: The United States will implement this plan by requiring all teachers to learn how to operate a handgun. This will require a handgun saftey course. Plank 3: Funding: The funding for this plan will occur through a 1 penny increase on gas. According to think progress [2] raising gas 1 penny will transfer to a 5.8 billion dollar payday for the government. By requiring the Government to implement a gas tax, we can make enough money to pay for a handgun. On average, the typical handgun cost's between 500-800 dollars [3]. Plank 4: Enforcement: This plan will be enforced through the United States Department of Education, then transfered down the Each and Every School District to enforce this plan.Contention 3: SolvencyThe plan solves school shootings.This plan, will increase the amount of firepower that is on school grounds. Countries like Switzerland [4] that require all citizens to own a handgun have the lowest crime rate of all counties in the world. As John Czarnecki PhD of Forensics at the University of Colorado Boulder once said, (2014) "The threat in public of law abiding citizens having weapons, and the training to do so, will always deter shooters not to follow through with what they plan on doing." Switzerland requiring all citizens to own a handgun deters the threat of violence.School requiring teachers to have a handgun with them in class, will show shooters that there is more teachers with weapons to protect the students than him/her. This will deter them from ever stepping onto school grounds with the thought of killing students.In the end, having proposed a thorough plan, and 3 contentions to back up this plan of the need for teachers to have firearms, I arge an affirmative ballot in today's debate. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] http://www.cabelas.com...[4] http://www.elist10.com...

Alrighty then. Let's get started. First of all, I'm going to ask a question. What is a gun? Well, it is a weapon. Technically speaking the very discharge of a firearm is a violent act, even if no living organism is harmed In the process. But, guns can be used for purposes which either harm an organism or do not harm an organism. Guns can, thus, be thought of as a physical manifestation of power. The idea behind gun control is that human beings, who have violent tendencies, should not be entrusted with this power, which can be used to hurt or kill one another. While human beings are violent, we can be restrained through factors such as the development of a sense of morality, religious belief, fear of legal repercussion, the fear of the other guy shooting back, etc. Thus, the statement that humans are violent isn't necessarily true under all circumstances. Likewise, this power can be used to protect ourselves and others from those who seek to harm us. In this way, power is a double-edged sword, one that need not be feared in the hands of the majority as long as the majority of people are "good". Also, removing this power from the populace is problematic, because the Government that put such a restriction in place still possesses guns, and more sophisticated weaponry. What results is a power imbalance; the Government has power and the populace does not. As long as the Government is benevolent, this is okay. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if, after 2,000 years of being a "good" Government it suddenly corrupts and turns on the populace? What then? Because Governments also have a potential for evil which cannot be wholly eliminated, there is no logical reason to trust solely the Government with power. It makes about as much sense as the U.S. Federal Government eliminating its own checks and balances so that power may be concentrated in the hands of one branch. Because neither the populace nor the Government can be trusted entirely, there should be a system of check-and-balance between the populace and the Government. That is, the Government would be powerful enough to handle a minority, but not the majority. The majority will remain good as long as that which society endorses, values, expects, teaches, and enforces is good. In a moral society the majority will be moral. If the majority of people are good, then a minority group of "bad" people will be few in number whenever attempting something bad. Being few in number, bad people can be suppressed by the Government. Likewise, when the Government turns bad, the majority will turn on the Government. Since the Government would not have the power to defeat the majority, it would be defeated and the majority could re-establish a good Government in the place of the corrupted one. However, the populace's power would rely upon them possessing not only weaponry, but every instrument used by militaries to increase power. This includes logistics, communications, mobility, and the likes. Thus, I argue that not only do gun laws need to be weakened, but that civilians should have access to much more powerful weaponry than they do. Civilians should have access to assault rifles, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, tanks, fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, advanced communication, armed drones, secure bunkers, advanced early warning systems, and the likes. An important balance must be preserved between the populace and the Government, with the populace having the upper hand at all times. It is the democratization of power, and it is good. Thank you.

As the new provision in Georgia allowing guns in the terminals at airports may by unsettling to many, I believe it to be comforting. The government is giving each citizen their right to self-defense and personal protection. This falls under the right to bear arms and if anything they are providing us with the freedom we should have already had. Those who bear arms had to go through the process to license a gun. Therefore, the more trained individuals that obtain guns, the safer everyone will be. "While residents can carry guns inside airport terminals in Georgia, they cannot take their weapons through security to the gates." (1) This is fair, because before security we are still have the right to self defense. After we transport through security towards the gates we are under the security of the airport and government legislation. Airport's are some of the most dangerous places in America and it's important that every individual has the right to protection at all times. 1.Johnson, P. (2014, April 23). Georgia adopts law allowing guns at airports, bars, most other places ( video). Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.csmonitor.com...

Thank you for posting your next argument. Look at this example, "Resolved, guns should be allowed for everyone to have. You can read all about it in the United States Constitution." You see, in a debate one can not just say go read about something. You must make an actual argument. Also, have you read that link? If you want me to debate the stuff your link said, let me just point out some of the things it said. "White welfare for Black Race fuels inherent slaughter." "A HOLOCAUST AND IT IS NIGH UPON YOU. HIRED SICK TEACHERS ARE PAID TO TEACH YOU EVIL TO ENSLAVE YOU STUPID AND YOU NOW POSSESS AN IDIOT CYCLOPIC MENTALITY. YOU LACK THE BRAINS TO KNOW THAT 4 SIMULTANEOUS DAYS ROTATE IN AN IMAGINARY CUBED EARTH. KEEP IGNORING ME AQND YOU WILL PAY HELL FOR CLAIMING" Hmm.... here's something else "Obama must resign to save his people from his catastrophe. SUN power will not allow any Black Skin power to rule over its Light Domain. Hell cometh to the dumb, ignorant, educated stupid "Worshippers of ONE", for Creation is of OPPOSITES. Born Cubed I defy God of ONE, for I have a Yes and No mentality necessary for cubed intelligence -no Cyclopic educator can allow. Obama must resign or Doomsday,for only Light can rule over Earth. No ONEistic god possesses Cubed Wisdom. " Okay, so I will argue argue your link in round 4. I thank my opponent. and encourage the audience to read the racist link. Sources: http://timecube.com...

Well, how about if you have a gun and little kids, they don't know if a gun is dangerous or not they can pick it up and shoot themselves or you just by accident. Someone comes up behind a girl trying to tell her she dropped her wallet, the girl thinks its a rapist, 'bang' an innocent man just died because a women thought it was a rapist. Because lots of women say they get sexually harassed (stares) and women sometimes make false rape accusations It doesn't reduce rape just increases the number of women shooting people, good or bad people. Guns don't reduce crime, they increase the number of injuries and deaths and the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is wrong to try telling that to the victims of school shootings, "no it wasn't the gun that did that to your school peers it was just that man' is not good enough argument. Also, guns make it easier for people to commit suicide, they have a gun and they are depressed, they aren't thinking and 'bang' they're dead.

I think the right to own guns should be abolished. Let me cite the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The security of a free state, not the security of a person. Back in the day when USA was a young country, they were constantly under threat of other European superpowers, such as Spain and Great Britain. So owning a gun was a great idea during that time. Why? When a foreign country invade America, they could gather the militia, form an army, and defend their land. Now we have US army, USAF, US marine, US Navy, etc. So what's the point of owning a gun when we have the armies protect us? Now to the security of a person. There's many evil people out there who like to do evil stuff, such as rape, stealing, killing, etc. You can defend yourself without a gun. Ever heard of knife? You can get those at Walmart. Even if you don't have a knife, why not just go to the martial art class?

My question to con would be, what does power have to do with politeness. Con has compared power to being well mannered, are civil. This is an argument that has little to do with the initial subject. one can have power and still be polite. If The power argument is to be taken into account, then one must understand that if all are armed the power is then shared. In retrospect, there have been many of people with power that were very polite. Just check history. Mafia bosses are a great example.

But we still don't have the right to bear arms? I would appreciate it if you weren't such a poaching advocate. Ok the NRA leader (Charles Heston) believes all these guns problems are because we have a more mixed ethnicity in the United States. Let me go over the reason you should vote con. I don't support poaching, and I am not racist. One quote pro said was this. " there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets" Are you on acid? I would just like to say to you mghee188, that there are places to help people like you. Poaching is a curable problem, but stupidity isn't. Guess you will have to live with that. Around 4:40 is where Charles Heston makes the NRA sound so great. http://www.youtube.com...

Hi. So I did a word find on my paragraph and I think I see the problem. My final sentence says " The main gun homicide happens from gangs in nig populated cities like Chicago." I made a spelling error. The word nig is supposed big. I put an instead of a B because I was typing really fast and on a laptop, keyboard B is right next to N. I was not racist. Read my profile. I am black. It doesn't matter what time Jefferson lived in. The quote shows why the amendment was made. The point was under gun control people have suffered more than they have not If the blacks had been armed than yes, yes they could. Need an example just look at the slave revolts that made Haiti independent from France. Another point was that the right to bear arms was to prevent dictators. Where is the proof the Stalin was popular with the people unlike Hitler he wasn't elected and the conditions in which Hitler came to power are not reflected in the USSR? No, I didn't drop the arguments from economics, black markets and practical uses. I said that I addressed them. To continue to argue from them with your ignorance would be circular reasoning and a waste of my time. Okay so on to your last standing argument nonsense. Can you give me your links to your sources I can't seem to find the data that confirms you stats? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes International Homicide Statistics database the US between 1995 and 2015 has seen a continually drop in intentional homicides and is below the world average. Here is the link to my the data https://data.worldbank.org... In the United States. according to Politifact Mass shooting Fatalities per 100000 people are 0.15 while for Switzerland it is 0.17, Norway is 1.30 and Finland is 0.34. So no my data is not incorrect. This decrease has to do with both Gun possession and other factors. I am not sure of a decrease since 1791. I haven't looked into that data and I doubt that such data even exists. Need more examples? Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. Need more examples? Do you get the correlation? Most school shootings, in fact, most homicides happen to unarmed defenceless populations and Thomas Jefferson saw that. No, the Suicide and gang homicide rates are because of issues beyond the gun. Such as bullying, Family violence, poverty etc. These are the issues that need to be addressed. The safety of countries such as the UK is subjective. The UK particularly London doesn't really seem to be safe. I argued how more legal gun ownership reduces crime rates. Check my sources and arguments Your remove the guns idea shows that you are ignorant of the facts. Gun Control doesn't work as you think it does and I gave the reasons why. Any sensible person who respects the facts would VOTE AGAINST this motion. For the Voters: My opponent is wrong in facts. My opponent fails to realize that the issue of Guns is beyond the Guns. That the second amendment must be upheld and that it is still reliable today. My opponent has ignored the data. Hasn't provided sources to back up their claims contrary to me. My opponent engages in ad hoc attacks due to a spelling error I have made. My opponent fails to realize that the US is not abnormal in gun deaths unlike what CNN and other media like Vox would like you to know. My opponent has not refuted my arguments such as how increased Legal Gun ownership lowers crime rates and so on. My opponent is ignorant on gun control issues and needs correction. In full summary. The US does not have an abnormal homicide problem. Gun issues are common in places where guns are prohibited. Guns are a civil right. Guns serve a practical purpose. The issues of gangs and suicide are so much deeper than guns themselves. The US does not reach the top 27 list on homicide rates while other developed countries like Japan are. Crime is down in America. In Europe, it is on the rise. In Mass shootings whatever definition you have. The Countries with higher Gun control such as Norway and Finland have higher fatalities. Also, some shootings are actually not shootings but other crimes such as terrorism. Gun control does not work as well as people think it does. The main people pushing it are uneducated on this subject. People such as Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg. If you have COMMON SENSE PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION. Thank you.

Okay, should people who don't have good reasons for a gun not get a gun? Also, who gets to decide what is a good reason? Rationality is subject. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say rationality mus survive under scrutiny. Also, let me give you an example. Imagine that I am a Government employee who works in the department/agency dealing with gun laws. Imagine you are that farmer who has to deal with armed gangs attacking your property. Now imagine that the attacks happened but in my judgment, I decided that there was no attack even if you gave me empirical evidence of the attacks and because of that I refuse to give you a gun. What happens then? On to the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether or not the US could be invaded or whether the Government could become dictatorial. The right is there and it must be upheld. The Constitution is a "living tree" document what's in it must be upheld. There is a reason why amendments were given to give rights to women and ethnic minorities because of the strict line to line interpretation. Also, abolish guns would not help in the defence of the United States especially as the geopolitical situation becomes tenser. Also, a dictatorial government could rise if one cannot out due to courts and subdue Congress perhaps doing what Hitler did which is have the army point guns at congress members and have them pass a law "enabling act" that will give the President dictatorial powers. The unarmed populace would have to come to terms with the new government. Guns are needed for security in the United States not just from a national threat but for personal safety. For example, African Americans who kept KKK members from going into their homes and lynching them. Okay, so the fact that you bring up suicides and unintentional deaths shows that guns are not the issue. The issue is much deeper than that. Cultural issues, mental illness, lack of education, clumsiness etc. Not a reason to Ban Guns. Guns carry a practical matter. They are a way of protection, fun and responsibility. The responsibility which of exercised property can help develop a person to be a more responsible and contributing citizen. Banning guns is not workable and it does not make sense. I believe that those who want to ban guns are to narrow minded on the topic. A good guy with a gun could prevent a bad guy with a gun from committing an act. Cars are not needed. You can walk and if not take public transport. Fly in a plane or a helicopter, ride a horse or something. Do you see where this is going? Blunt objects and cars combined to much more damage than guns in the United States. Why target a minority and not the majority? I don't you understand how a black market works. The US spends billions nearly a trillion dollars on the war on drugs was it successful? If people want guns for business or crime. No Law or Tax ill stop the determined and when you unarm the law abiding citizens but you can't stop the baddies than you create a bigger problem than that of which existed before. Once again Constitutional rights must be upheld. Also, an unarmed law abiding populace will fall victim to an armed non-law-abiding populace which could eventually seize power through a coup d etat. Armed officials in schools would be better than banning guns. Once again Deterministic criminals will get by if they have to face little to no resistance.


Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Concealed Carry?

Concealed handgun laws do not effectively reduce violent crime
"Let's avoid any unnecessary semantics and focus on the core issue at hand. My opponent seems to share this sentiment, which I appreciate. However, it's crucial to clarify the term 'concealed carry handgun laws' to ensure a productive debate. For the sake of this discussion, I propose that we define 'concealed carry handgun laws' as any legislation that imposes limitations or restrictions on the concealed carrying of handguns in public spaces. I believe this definition is fair and reasonable, and it will contribute to a meaningful exchange of ideas.

I agree with my opponent's stance on avoiding semantics and trolling. I also accept the proposed definitions and stipulations and wish them the best of luck in this debate.

Now, let's address the main proposition: that concealed carry handgun laws effectively reduce violent crime. Unfortunately, my opponent's argument is not well-supported. I will refute their claim and present my own case.

Contention 1: Concealed carry handgun laws can lead to an increase in violent crime.
Historical data shows that concealed carry handgun laws have not always resulted in a decrease in violent crime. In fact, they can have the opposite effect. For instance, during the period when the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. was, on average, 73% higher than it was before the law was implemented, while the U.S. murder rate was, on average, 11% lower (source). Similarly, in 1997, Britain enacted a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns. However, since the law took effect, the British homicide rate has been, on average, 52% higher than it was before the gun control law was enacted in 1968 and 15% higher since the handgun ban was introduced in 1997 (source). Lastly, in 1982, Chicago banned handguns for civilians. Since the law took effect, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has been, on average, about 40% higher than it was before the law was implemented (source).

Contention 2: Concealed carry handgun laws may be unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Concealed carry handgun laws,

the 2nd amendment says," A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."not to protect a free person. if guns were allowed in the US there wold be a higher crime rate.Most people get hut by guns if the own them. A 5-year-old girl died after she accidentally shot herself with her father's gun while he was in the shower, apparently getting ready for an outing with his children. Investigators say Haley Moore got a hold of her dad's gun, which had been left unsecured on a table. Joy Ursin, a neighbor of the family said she considered that fact unusual, because, she said the father, a military veteran, was known to be conscious of gun safety. "He would tell them about the dangers and he had this thing about safety," she said. "He did not want them to be ignorant of the fact that they can harm you." Ursin said Haley Moore was spunky, and full of life. "She loved to have fun." Ursin said another sibling told her that the family was planning to go see a movie Saturday. Officers who responded to the scene said things always take on an urgency when a child is involved. "The first thing that goes through your mind is that it"s a child and you want to do everything you can to help that child get through this ordeal," said Lt. Greg Baker with the St. John the Baptist Sheriff"s Office. But after being rushed to the hospital, Moore died. "That"s a tragedy, there"s no other way to put anything like that" said neighbor John Tracy.

My position is that the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution does not provide any rights for anyone to bear arms in the US. This is a hot button issue that few people understand, but many think they understand it. If you think you can prove the 2nd amendment, commonly referred to as 2A gives you the rights to bear arms, then accept the challenge and prove it. It is really that simple. If you think I'm wrong, crazy, or just ignorant, then challenge me. No rules. Main argument round 2 Rebuttal and conclusion round 3.

< > The only holes that exist are in your argument. You've completely FAILED to answer many of my points, nor have you made good on your initial intentions. Remember your statement: <> ??? <> I put the relevant part in quotes for you not to miss. It read, "a well regulated militia". Perhaps you are not distorting it intentionally. Maybe you just do not understand the Second Amendment. I will explain it for you: (Definition from your own American Heritage Dictionary, which you cannot dispute, as you used it as your source for information above.) regï¿½uï¿½late Pronunciation Key [reg-yuh-leyt] –verb (used with object), -latï¿½ed, -latï¿½ing. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. The spirit of the Second Amendment clearly indicated that the militia have structure and regulation. Laws like the Brady law help to provide such requirements to allow everyday citizens to bear arms. What you are proposing is wreckless and dangerous to law abiding citizens. You are arguing that anyone can obtain a gun without any training, background checking, or "regulation" whatsoever. That is gravely irresponsible and cannot be condoned by civilized society. < > Since statistical analysis is beyond you, allow me to simplify it. If 600,000 gun purchases have been blocked, that means the potential for law abiding citizens of becoming victims of injury/death is greatly reduced for the simple fact that there were that many guns not at large posing a potential threat. < > Yes, and it can also be as simple as being determined to be temporarily insane once in your past too. People that are prone to psychological breaks do not need to purchase a gun with ease. < > Prove to me that by making it easy for (former) criminals to purchase firearms easily that they will buy guns legally. You're the Pro. Prove it, as the burden of proof is on you. For the record, I think you're absolutely wrong. < > No, but they are not the only ones that use guns to harm law abiding citizens, which is the point of this debate. <> Just because you have not seen this does not mean it does not happen. I am in Los Angeles where Bloods and Crips (not Crypts) buy guns legally all the time. I suspect that many of their guns are bought illegally, but there are many that are not and you are stereotyping a group of people of whom you know nothing about. < > Off topic. Also, drugs are not as cheap as a driver's license. <> That is doubtful. Anytime you engage in illegal activity, the merchandise is appropriately raised, which is what allows the seller to make a "fair" profit, due to the risks and consequences of getting caught that are involved. <> That's not true, as I do not see our police or military forces being disarmed. The people who protect the law abiding citizens have to be armed as a matter of common sense. These are also the people that are properly trained to carry firearms. < > How many people are truly rehabilitated in prison? How many return to prison after being released because s/he committed a (violent) crime? You are un-American if you are against Gun Control Laws. The well-being of the law abiding citizens should always come first. Why should law abiding citizens be at the mercy of a government who allows any violent idiot off the street acquire a means to do great damage and violence? < > Really? England's and Australia's gun violence statistics are no where near as overwhelming as the USA's. Americans deserve to be as safe as the people in safer nations that have Gun Control Laws. Are you going to flee from this point again or address it? < > You've omitted the actual figures. The way that I see it, a jump in stabbings by TEN percent is preferable with a DECLINE of shooting by TWELVE percent. It more mathematically sound when put into proper context. Thank you for that. < > That is not working now. We need Gun Control Laws. It is just that simple. < > That is a lie or an untrue generalization. < > I agree, but that has NOTHING to do with this debate. < > You are right about preventing crime in the first place, but sadly, you are wrong about the allowing of private citizens to obtain guns. You are suggesting that people with mental retardations of any kind should also be allowed to get upset one day and go buy a gun to shoot whomever made them upset. You are not discriminating against anyone in your argument. You just want to make it easier for anyone to be able to do EVIL.

'There have been many incidents regarding gun shootings. Helpless and innocent lives have been snatched away due to another man's carelessness or anger. You could say that "people abuse people, not guns abuse people". Yes, overall it is the person harming another person, but if people's carelessness continues due to guns, isn't it logical to control guns? Yes, again you can bring up that cars also bring deaths, but the solution to that is rising the age limit, or going off of experience. You can also restrict the use of cars, but in the grand scheme of things, it is impractical. Cars are a need to society, but what need is there for guns? Taking the multiple shootings into consideration, guns weren't needed, but in car accidents, cars are more needed than guns. List of shooting incidents: . http://en.wikipedia.org......' I think it is important to know that the number of shootings in the US has not increased over the last few decades (. http://time.com......) . The worst year for the US when it comes to mass shootings was 1929 , 'In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U. S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. ' (- . http://www.nationalreview.com......). Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp writes at Cato, "In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States. '" -(. http://www.washingtonpost.com......) . 'Yes, you cannot take away the right to bear arms, (In the U. S), but you can still restrict the use of arms. Keep in mind I am not in favor for banning guns, but CONTROLLING its uses. ' By making guns harder to get you would cause an increase in crime rates . 'from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i. e. , those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. 4' (-. http://thomas.loc.gov......) This number would clearly suggest that gun rights lower crime rates. My opponent then talks about how states with low gun ownership rates have less suicide. Suicide is a personal choice and you should not take away somebodies right to gun ownership just because someone want's to kill himself which is irrelevant. Extra Info : 'With just one single exception, the attack on congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1915 in the U. S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. '. -(. http://spootville.blogspot.co.uk...) . Guns are used 7 times more frequently in self defense than they are used during the commission of a crime. - (. http://www.electsteveowens.org...). After 60 years of increasing gun control the UK murder rates got worse -()-9 minute mark. The UK more specifically had less violance before 1920 when there was much less gun control. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are about 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America every year.

Here is my point as simply as I can present it: The topic is: The right to bear arms is good. Of course, what you probably meant is that people should be allowed to own guns, a common interpretation of the Amendment. All I'm saying is this: The phrase "the right to bear arms" is not good. It was written 200 years ago and so the people who wrote it had no idea what it would come to define. Should people be allowed to own firearms? Of course. Should there be limits on the number and type of firearms that a person owns? Of course. As we've agreed, no one is advocating that citizens own nuclear weapons. But if they don't have them, they would have no ability to stand up to your "oppressive government". The militia argument is worthless. People have the right to own reasonably powerful firearms for protecting their property and family, and for hunting as well. But there needs to be limits, and at the very least, the gun show loophole must be closed. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.

I think the right to own guns should be abolished. Let me cite the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The security of a free state, not the security of a person. Back in the day when USA was a young country, they were constantly under threat of other European superpowers, such as Spain and Great Britain. So owning a gun was a great idea during that time. Why? When a foreign country invade America, they could gather the militia, form an army, and defend their land. Now we have US army, USAF, US marine, US Navy, etc. So what's the point of owning a gun when we have the armies protect us? Now to the security of a person. There's many evil people out there who like to do evil stuff, such as rape, stealing, killing, etc. You can defend yourself without a gun. Ever heard of knife? You can get those at Walmart. Even if you don't have a knife, why not just go to the martial art class?

Ban: Confiscate and outlaw, while placing penalties on owning said product, (in this case, guns.) Freedom & Law The confiscation, outlawing, & penalization of the ownership of guns. That is what your definition presented means. That means confiscating people of their weapons, making it illegal to own one, & if anyone that slipped through the cracks & caught later then they will be charged with a crime. The resolution is the US should ban guns, not the US government should ban certain people of having guns. As you also stated in your previous round "the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away," The 2nd amendment is an individual right, an expert on the English language [1] [2] [3] as well as a much newer Supreme Court cases states it to be the case. [4] [5] State constitutions calling it as such. [6] The meaning come even more clear when you also look at the intent of the Founders. Essentially an overturned court case hold no importance at all. Even if it did, assault weapons most definitely would fall under such arguments and therefore shouldn't result in banning them. However this argument regards all guns. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." " Samuel Adams. [7] In order for the government to deny everyone's right to bear arms, they can't make the case of the 'greater good of the general welfare', they must make the case for each individual has committed a crime grave enough to warrant that person's right be restricted for the 'greater good', cause due process. This can't be done for 99.99% majority hasn't committed a crime "I already brought up the fact that over 1 million children live in a home with an unlocked or loaded weapon," I've already brought up laws already established that penalizes negligence & child endangerment, if that law can't be enforced with only 2 million guilty. There is no way humanly possible to enforce a law on 100-150 million people whom are against such a thing and has already act in defiance of such things. Estimated crime with the use of a gun is at 500,000, the number of cases in defense of a crime is considerably more. Since there already laws established under due process to restrict people convicted of a crime grave enough to warrant a restriction. There are not among the debate like the 10s of millions innocent who are accident, homicide, or suicide free, that would be affected by the definition presented. A person convicted of a crime results in their rights be restricted, not everyone's right. That is due process So again from the aspect of freedom & legality, this argument is done. Suicides Suicide is a victim less 'crime', ultimately the peoples' right to do so. A person has a right to their own, hence their right to end it if they wish. Therefore, the act of voluntarily taking ones own life as a reason to remove the vast majority of the peoples' right to defend theirs should be dropped & ignored. In my last round I showed that a large % of criminals was scared off before completion of a crime & even prevented a crime from taking place. This mindset for anyone that values their self preservation will exist anywhere in the world, including Australia. After the gun ban in Australia, more people became victims cause they, the criminals, were emboldened, less afraid of their life being taken. From pro's source "It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States." Why? Cause the American people in vast numbers refuse to follow suit with such things as buybacks & registering. The mindset of Australians & Americans are different. There is historic evidence that Americans won't rid themselves the right to bear arms cause a fraction of 1% of the population use their gun illegally & irresponsibly. You think the defiance would cease in the face of forced confiscation? That's wishful thinking. "This proves that the CDC is basically required to promote the gun owning population, or suffer from lawsuits if their data proves differently." Wild assertion, if that was the case, the US government, whom is actively bent on gun control, wouldn't have funded it. My opponents attempt to rebut the facts that despite predictions of Kennesaw becoming a war zone after the law passed didn't come to light. Crime rates reduced across the board after the law was passed, just as crime rates increased in other parts of the the US & world following bans including Australia. The only difference in crime rates before and after the ban in Australia, UK, Jamaica, ext was the ban, [8] so logic dictates that gun ownership is a major factor in the crime rates. Mexico, strict gun control is in a major war with their armed citizens whom are possession of them. [8] The United Kingdom, strict gun laws, regarded my dangerous nation in Europe, worse then the United States. [8] Gun ownership is considered an important crime deterrent. The police force in the United States doesn't prevent crime, they just catch the criminals that commit the crime. Officers arrive after the fact, people must be able to protect themselves when those seconds matter then report the crime afterwards. There are 100s 1000s of animal attacks a year, millions of criminals committing crimes,without a gun every year, government abuse, I've seen in person, and increase risk of invasion. America's superpower status is waning, China status of becoming a thing, as well as Russia. Tensions rising in world, America's natural defenses of distance and geographic position is null in modern times. It may not happen within the nest 50 years but America wasn't always the most powerful & its not logical to assume that we will away be most powerful. The right to bear arms was also established so that a foreign nation can't invade & subject us to the types of harshness that the Nazis placed on those lands they occupied as well as against their own people. Or Japan's Nanking Rape where national armies abandon the city leaving the people there with no means of defense. America is not immune to tyranny or invasion, the British ruled, they were pushed out but slavery existed, then gun control measures existed to prevent blacks from rising up and dealing with this tyranny. [9] The economic toll on America & whole states would be negatively affected. 300,000+ people would take a hit which can itself result in a desperate act of criminal activity. The voters need to place the affects of banning or not banning on a set of scales. This isn't just a save lives measure cause there are aspects of American life that will be affected. Therefore any legit discussion involves all that would be involved. The people positively affected of gun ownership & people affected negatively. Looking at the facts, you'll see that the positively affected outweighs the negative. The rights of 318 million Americans would be violated, cause of 500,000-1 million whom abuse their right. The former outweighs this here. Gun ownership is undeniably a crime deterrent, criminals will be criminals, removing the innocence ability to use the most efficient means of defense will result in increase crime. This will not protect the 'general welfare' of the people. The economic toll on the US economy that is already $19 trillion in debt would severely hurt our ability to get out of debt faster, our already unemployment problem would get much worse. And peoples' ability to provide for their loved ones being negatively affected would result in desperate measure, not in the best interest of the United States or the general welfare of the people. The consequence of a government program to forcibly confiscate weapons from Americans would result in a vast defiance from the people. People would refuse to surrender their arms, as their historic counterparts had done in the past, & any attempt to put the people & the government into at odd in such a situation would, highly likely, result in the death of Americans both citizen & law enforcement in government. This is again, not in the best interest of the US government or the general welfare. [1] http://articles.latimes.com... [2] http://www.constitution.org... [3] [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www2.law.ucla.edu... [7] http://www.whiteoutpress.com... [8] http://www.gunfacts.info... [9] http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [10] [11]

Freedom "These principles are ingrained in American culture as the unalienable rights that all people are entitled to, & that all threats to those rights are, by nature, not in the best nature of the US. In fact, these are such American ideals that they're represented in the constitution by the Due Process clause in the constitution, meaning that everyone has these unalienable rights unless proven guilty of a crime worthy of having those rights taken away, & the 14th amendment which repeated the fact that everyone is equal under the law & has the right to life, liberty, & property. " That is essentially my argument based on the rights of the people. Americans have a right to life, liberty, & property + pursuit of happiness. The government is constructed & its purpose is to protect those rights, among them, the 2nd amendment. Americans have a right to use their property, in this case guns, to protect their life, liberties, property, & pursuit of happiness. It is estimated that 1/3 to even 1/2 of the population own guns, that is 100-150 million people. [1] There is around 33,600 deaths by guns annually, includes accident, negligent, murder, & suicides. [2] That means that .0003% of the population did something resulting in a life taken, that also means that 99.9997% was accident free, no suicide or homicides. Legally, the other 99-149 million+ gun owners shall be free & the government has 0 reason to attempt to deny them of that right based on due process. Cause they have not committed a crime to warrant an arrest, placed on trail, & certainly not found guilty of trail by a jury of their peers. Furthermore, 90% of the people oppose a complete ban and confiscation. [3] So, from a legal & a freedom aspect, there should not be a gun ban. Gun bans don't work Comparing pre & post gun ban crime rates for the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, & Australia, it tells you that the murder rates increased or was similar to pre gun ban. [4] [5] However, other crimes did indeed increase, the UK is considered the most dangerous nation in Europe, worse than the US & South Africa. [6] However, there is a law in Kennesaw GA, that requires heads of households to own a gun & crime rates have decreased, resulting in a murder free environment for 25 years, despite predictions that that American county would become the wild west. [7] Whereas, other counties enacting opposite laws have seen increases in crime rates. [8] Lets look at the most painfully obvious proof that gun ban doesn't work... At our schools. The law abiding Americans accept this obviously proven mistake at great cost to, as you said, America's future. Instead of allowing responsible people, I'm sure we agree that most teachers are responsible, whom owns a firearm to conceal carry, or the principle, or someone there to have access to their gun to defend the school against a potential intruders. Defense There are a multitude of potential threats the American people face. Animal attacks in the 100s of 1000s for just dogs [9], criminals, invasion, & tyrannical government. These threats are real, a ban & confiscation of firearms would result in much larger number of potential fatalities against animals, criminals would be embolden by their victims reduced chances, invasion of the United States could forget about strategic planning for the stiff resistance of the American people thanks to a ban, & the people would be forced to live under a government that controls the monopoly of force which is a very dangerous gamble to take. A famous quote comes to mind when I write this, "Those that give up liberty for temporary safety will lose both & deserve neither" Now for a comparison between legal defense gun uses vs illegal gun uses in crime. " A 1995 study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology based upon a 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard. " [10] The estimated number of times guns are used in defense against a criminal range in the low 100,000-millions. Report from the CDC puts the number of times Americans used a gun to frighten an intruder away at about 500,000. [10] The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology estimates that the number of times guns are used in defense is over 1 million. [10] A 1982 survey of felons in prison concluded that 34% was scared off from a gun owner, 40% didn't commit a crime out of a belief that the victim was in possession of gun, & 69% of them knew someone else that were scared off with a gun. [10] The lowest estimates of occasions that Americans use guns in defense is multiple times higher than they are used to murder. Average estimates are about the same number of times guns are used illegally, high estimates rivals or surpasses violent crimes. The CDC also concluded that gun ownership is an important crime deterrent. [11] Bad for the economy A ban on guns would result in a serious problem for the economy, there are over 155,000 workers that are good paying jobs in that industry. Even more workers that revolves around that industry. Those businesses provide near $7 billion in taxes, & near $50 billion to the economy. A ban would cause those people their jobs, assuming they have a families it easily affects 310,000 people not counting real possibility that they have children. [12] Entire states are dependent on the gun industries, the gun industry employs more people then GM. [13] To put it in a little perspective, America's gun industries, if they were a nation, would rank around 82nd wealthiest nation in the world, there are 173 nations. [14] So the gun industry provides America with more money than half of the world's nations can provide itself. Violence would ensue The American reaction towards a call of confiscation would be negative to say the least. As I said earlier in this round, 90% of Americans oppose a total gun ban & any attempt to confiscate them. A large % of Americans refuse to register their weapons. [15] [16] The last time authorities went on a hell bent mission of gun confiscation resulted in the 'shot hear round the world' [17], I don't imagine the reactions of freedom loving people in the United States would respond much differently. The people of the United States having been born & raised understanding that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate line of defense against tyranny, & knowing that when seconds truly matter, cops are minutes away. Americans will not quietly surrender what is considered the most important right the American people have. [1] http://bearingarms.com... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.democraticunderground.com... [4] http://www.mintpressnews.com... [5] http://www.ncpa.org... [6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [7] http://rense.com... [8] http://www.wnd.com... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://www.justfacts.com... [11] http://www.cnsnews.com... [12] http://www.nssf.org... [13] http://www.theblaze.com... [14]https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [15] http://www.infowars.com... [16] http://controversialtimes.com... [17] https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure exactly why you have the resolved: in the title. Hand guns are very useful everyone. People can use them to defend their selves against both humans and animals. Our forefathers wanted the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment to protect against totalitarian governments. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see bears' arms are important to Americans. http://constitution.findlaw.com... http://www.mrwallpaper.com...

First of all, I am talking just about America. I apologize, As I should have stated that in round 1. " Imagine if guns became legal, People would be shooting each other for the smallest things. Fights would break out of nowhere. Instead of stooping down to the level of the criminal how about we increase the efficiency of the military against terrorist attacks. Increase the salaries of policemen and stop wasting that money on useless things. " Since I am talking about America, Guns are already legal. Sure, There are some shootings and fights with them. What would we be wasting money on? However, Although guns take lives, Many more are saved by them. There are over 2. 5 million DGU's per year. (https://www. Lawenforcementtoday. Com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually) "Pro-gun is pro-violence. We never fight bad with bad. That is not our way. Most governments are selfish for their own countries in a good way but the countries who are not like South Africa and Pakistan will need help from other countries, From other nations, If only our world wasn't inconsiderate. " I would argue anti-gun is pro violence. You are not fighting bad with bad, You are fighting bad with good. Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. And again, I wasn't talking about other countries, Just America, Which is my fault. Gun bans have proven not to be effective, Such as Britain, Australia, Etc. After the ban in Britain, Homicide spiked up and then eventually went back down to the pre-ban rate, Proving not effective. Violent crime in America has decreased 50% in the last 20 years as concealed-carry goes up during that time. I'm not saying correlation equals causation, But it is proven concealed-carry does not increase violent crime. "Carrying a pepper spray or a taser is a way safer option for our world. Plus when we will have guns we will have to change so many laws and regulations, That time should be spent trying to abolish poverty and improve education instead. Or even increase the efficiency of the military instead. When you will have the gun you will feel like it's your safe treasure and the smallest thing may lead you to possibly kill someone. For example, A slight movement of the hand and you have shot someone" I'm pretty sure guns would be more effective than pepper spray and tasers. Gunman can power through pepper spray, And tasers are no good if they shoot you from a distance. Guns are already legal in America. That's not what happens when you have a gun. Gun owners are very responsible and know the risks. Concealed-carry holders even commit crimes 14% less than police officers. That's how law-abiding they are. (https://www. Gunstocarry. Com/concealed-carry-statistics/) "Governments will have to increase prison space for the increased crime which will break out. " Violent crime has decreased 50% from 1990 in America.


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education should be mandatory in schools

In the context of grade school education, the necessity of Physical Education (PE) as a compulsory subject becomes a critical topic of discussion. The argument for making PE mandatory is grounded in the alarming prevalence of obesity in children and the associated health risks, as well as the cognitive and psychological benefits of physical activity.

Childhood obesity has become a global concern, characterized by excessive weight or fatness. The health implications of obesity in children are severe, with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases, prediabetes, bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological issues like stigma and low self-esteem. Statistics reveal that around 20% of children are obese, translating to one in every five kids. The solution to combat this epidemic lies in physical activity, as it promotes a healthy lifestyle and weight management. By making PE a requirement, schools can ensure that obese children engage in physical activity, which is essential for their health. If PE were optional, many of these children might choose not to participate, exacerbating the obesity issue.

Moreover, regular physical activity has been shown to enhance academic performance. Studies indicate that after just 20 minutes of walking, brain function improves, leading to better academic outcomes. A correlation between higher fitness levels and improved academic performance has been observed in various studies, including one that compared 3 million children based on their fitness and academic scores. Fit children consistently outperformed their less fit peers in academic tests. Another study by Charles Hillman, an associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, further supported these findings by demonstrating that BMI and aerobic capacity significantly influenced academic scores.

In addition to academic benefits, PE also helps in reducing stress among students. Chronic stress can lead to adverse health effects, such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. A significant percentage of adults suffer from stress-related health issues, and stress-related ailments account for a substantial number of doctor's office visits. Substance abuse as a coping mechanism for stress only exacerbates the problem. Given that a considerable number of grade school children consume alcohol and use drugs, which can intensify stress, incorporating PE can be a preventive measure against stress. Physical activity releases endorphins, chemicals in the brain that promote feelings of calm and relaxation, effectively combating stress and fatigue.

In conclusion, making Physical Education a requirement in grade schools is crucial for addressing the obesity epidemic, enhancing academic performance, and reducing

So, in my days of debate.org and schooling, I have heard many arguments of cancer being caused by a bad diet or some other stuff. This is not the case, my first argument starts here. Cancer is caused by a gene being damaged and a cell not being able to fix it. This is mostly genetic and is held in the DNA. Other factors can cause a risk for cancer such as RADIATION. Although, dieting is not in this list. Also, a person who's family has a history of cancer has a high risk of cancer as it is held in the persons hereditary information. With this stated, I will wait for con's rebuttal. Rules- no trolls (Akhetan can join but do not be a troll and actually cooperate)

There you are, sitting in your brand new deck chair with your robotic pet when all of a sudden this whale of a humanoid starts waddling along in a bikini that's three billion sizes too small. That's put you off food for a few years.You wish you could get that chocolate-chasing boulder of blubber would get out of the way, because now you've forgotten what the sun even looks like. Is it square? Is it purple? Is it visibly in motion? You don't know. This crisp-crunching menace is blocking your view and has been doing said thing for about three years, because chocolate-chasers move about as fast as a dead tortoise.In all that time you have to think, you get a great scientific and sophisticated idea! "Why not modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink?" You think to yourself. That would make everyone's life more pleasent.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether we should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink. I wish for a good debate.I thank you.

I am going to start off by saying that the purpose of Runway-models is to sell clothes. Nothing that my opponent mentioned furthers this goal. His entire case needs to be thrown out because he does not address or refute this definition, neither does he show how imposing a maximum weight helps the purpose of runway-models by selling more clothes.ARGUMENTS C1) Destroys businessPro's argument here is that skinny models can be used to advertise clothing to the overweight and the obese. He paraphrases my argument as "After all, he even states that the purpose is to make them look skinny," and then asks:so wouldnt it be even more effective to avertise using SKINNY people?"The problem with this is that clothing for the obese is designed to make an obese person look skinny. The only way this can be advertised is to try it on an obese person and show them off, maybe show them in the competitor's clothing as well, displaying to all how the company's clothing makes a fat person look skinny. It would certainly not make more sense to advertise using skinny people as the objective is to show that fat people can look skinny, not that skinny people can look skinny. So, if the organization removes the fat models, they would have no one on whom to showcase the clothes that they designed for the obese 1/3 of the population. This is what will destroy business.Pro also says that there already is a de-facto weight limit. I made a reasonable assumption that most models are underweight or normal weight with few being overweight or obese. If Pro is going to contest my assumption, he may say so in the next round. If I am then able to show that there is at least one model who is overweight or obese, Pro's argument about de-facto limit does not stand.C2) Discrimination bad"Con argues that media backlashes and boycotts may occur. Ok, what impact has he argued?"The reputation of the company will tank. This ties back to my first point. A bad reputation decreases sales of clothing which is what the purpose of runway models is. "He further argues that it would create legal problems, but he hasnt explained how." I have explained this. The models who were fired or not hired because of weight will file a lawsuit against the company. Lawsuits waste money for the company which again decreases business."Besides this "impact" is absolutely and incredibly outweighed." If the purpose of runway models was to prevent nuclear warfare, then yes it is outweighed, lol. Runway models are supposed to sell clothes, not increase military strength or protect humanity from Weapons of Mass Destruction. C3) Self esteem and depressionSee my rebuttal R3 below.REBUTTALSR1) Discourages obesityPro simply repeats what he said before. He says that because of confirmity, when one institution does something, the others will follow. Because everyone is now ostracizing obese people, they will be motivated to get thinner. I say again: Fat chance. When any group of people are ostracised such as Black people, White people, Asian people, men, women, disabled people, old people, etc, their best and most likely action would be to take that discrimination to the courts and file a lawsuit. Pro is unrealistically optimistic when he assumes that not only will no lawsuits be filed, but that ostracism is a good and beneficial thing that will help the obese lose weight. Ostracism will create psychological problems and will cause more harm than good.(i) World hungerPro concedes that in the long term, supply will decrease as demand decreases. His argument is based on short-term increases in supply which is outweighed by my point that in the long-term there will be a detriment. Pro wants a short, fleeting increase in supply. How would that do any good?Pro also argues that even a little saving would be beneficial if given to charities, but never explains why the food companies would give to charity as opposed to throwing the food away. Either way, this is just for the short-term. In any case, the purpose of a runway-model is not to solve world hunger. (ii) US heg.Pro argued that more people will become obese and it will decrease the number of potential recruits. There are about 1.5 million active personnel and 1.5 million reserve personnel in the military. Total US population is about 300 million. So the percentage of people serving in the military is 1%. Only the fittest can be selected to serve in the military. The effect to the military is negligible. In any case, the goal of a runway model is not to provide potential recruits to the military so this point has no impact.(iii) Economic stimulationI showed that the economy is too complex for a single industry to affect it. He says that gym memberships, health foods etc will be purchased more. However, television viewership will decline and may result in lower prices for broadcast and cable television in addition to the decline in the fast food industry. For every upside, there is a downside. The economy could go either way, and Pro gave no conclusive proof that it will in fact stimulate the economy.R2) Sexual deviancePro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give a part of their profits to the porn industry. The purpose of runway-models is to sell clothes, increase viewership, and expand the business, not to stamp out what Pro calls "sexual deviance." "you could get crushed under the weight of your sexual partner if they are obese." This is not true. Muscle is a lot heavier than fat. Most obese people are comprised entirely of fat and as such would have a lower body density than a person of normal weight. Compared to a leaner person, the obese are like big, fluffy puffballs filled with cotton candy, and as such have no capability to crush their partner in bed.R3) Public health"Most people admire beauty, so when there is a minimum body weight, some of our most beautiful people who would have previously been outright rejected will now turn to reducing their weight to meet their dream of modeling."Pro saying that there already exists a de-facto limit negates this entire argument. he said that it negates my argument because people will try to be thin regardless of whether a limit is imposed. If that statement is true, then what is the point of imposing a limit? His arguments are negated as well. At this point the only arguments that still stand are my points about decreased profits, legal problems and low sales.R4) BeautyPro just claims that "many people" believe our culture to be the pinnacle of society. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy, so throw out this point right away.Pro again says that he would prefer that he would rather see a modern day model than Catherine the Great in a miniskirt. This fails to answer my question: If people during Catherine's time were successful in defending their perspective of beauty, she would still have been considered beautiful now, which Pro does not consider a desirable scenario. ConclusionWhile I have humored my opponent by engaging with all his arguments, in reality, they are null and void. He never contested my definition that the purpose of runway-models is to sell clothes, not solve world hunger or prevent nuclear warfare. So, throw out his entire case and vote Con.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I certainly agree with your previous points that the smaller members of society pay more than their share of the economic burden in this situation. However, inequality in itself does not make the situation inequitable. I view this problem as one of civil rights that must be concerned with the question of whether people can be held responsible for things over which they have no control. The problem in this case is not simply one of obesity by choice, but variation in weight based on many different types of genetic predisposition. I hope we can accept without specific evidence that people vary widely in size whether or not they have made any personal choices to contribute to their weight. There are very short, very thin people who may weigh under 100 pounds. There are similarly very tall very muscular people that may approach 300 pounds while still being in excellent shape. Some people have genetic problems inherently like obesity or thyroid problems that render them unable to shed excess fat that the average person would be able to. Society benefits by contributing to the well being of all of its members regardless of circumstances beyond their control, and preventing discrimination on that basis. It is certainly true that variation in weight is not only based on circumstances that are beyond the individuals control. Some people who otherwise would be thin may avoid exercise and overeat to the point that they are obese. Other people who may be predisposed to obesity may make conspicuous efforts to maintain a lower weight. In spite of those cases, it is not justifiable to discriminate between all people in some group on the basis that only some of the group are deserving of that discrimination. Some individuals will certainly take advantage of the system, but preserving the justice for some outweighs the small economic benefits of forcing inequity on the rest. The analogy comparing meals in a restaurant to plane fare is not useful because each person makes an individual choice about what food they want to eat and when. Differences in metabolism might also easily mean that some smaller people eat more food at a higher cost than larger people. Similarly, different food costs different prices from different places; and all of those differences afford choice. There is some choice involved in weight, but enough of the matter is predetermined to make it morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.

Video: Being a ginger does things to people. http://www.youtube.com...0. FrameworkI actually don't know what framework means, but bear with me here, as this may put an end to Fat Albert's entire case. His perspective of a "fatty" is only one who is mortibly obese. However, a vast, vast majority of those who are overweight are only as such by around ten to twenty pounds.Being overweight at all makes them fat; being fat qualifies them as a fatty. Since it was never defined otherwise, this is what the common person would believe as well.So from now on, any time I can argue by saying that Al is only arguing about the irrationally fat and not the typically fat, I will shorten it by saying Framework.1. SwimmingA. Fatty McSauce up there claims that 100% of people sunburn. First of all,"That is so stupid." -Piers Morgan, usually right. What McSauce up there said can be easily disproven with this proof:> African Americans don't sunburn.> 13% of Americans are African American.> At most, 87% of Americans sunburn.> 87% < 96%.> You are a seal. B. The picture? Framework. Personally, I am somewhat attracted to the slightly overweight, a large demographic (pun intended this time) that Fat Alligator wants to ignore.C. Fat Al Gore wants to discredit buoyancy now, huh? You may have taken three years of middle school science, but you know what? I've taken four. So give me a break, buoyancy has been around longer than my opponent's mother, and his mother went to prom with Bhudda.D. Wha- What? I am- I am not a cyborg! That's- that's just- that's silly. You're silly.Most fat people can always have an enjoyable time on the beach. Most gingers will not. It's that simple. And if anyone has a man crush on Yao Chang Dong, they have a bigger problem.2. PregnancyA. Fat Crap's rebuttal on men looking pregnant is based strictly on opinion. I cited Chris Farley; he cited himself. Let's consider who's probably right here for a moment.B. Since Cosby Kid number one has no real rebuttal to the difference between a fat and pregnant woman, I'm calling it a concession. Maybe he doesn't agree with the point, but he conceeds it.C. I call Photoshop.3. The Stairs A. FAP is a very biased organization and my chubby opponent knows it. On the contrary, according to MASTURBATION (Multiple Associations Supporting Those Undergoing Bulimia, Anorexia, and Tubbiness In Other Nations), only about 2 fat people fall down the stairs annually. On the contrary, there are over 9000 incidents involving government-mandated ginger incidents by the hour.I have a few more sources up in my room. Be right ba-OW OW OW OW OH GOD OW OW WHAT EVEN OW OW OW OH FU- Sorry.B. Fat people can't go upstairs without breaking a staircase? Framework.Bottom Line: Gingers suffer from stair injury far more than the overweight.4. Fart Jokes Incoming, Take CoverA. Fat Al Pacino is misunderstanding me. I didn't mean to say that fat people are the only ones who ever fart. I simply meant that in social situations, fat people, for whatever reason, always choose to fart. It's like everyone else has the decency to save their farts for home, but the Bic Macs are not capable of that. They bring the humiliation upon themselves.Excellent logic, but still a misunderstanding. And no, I don't consider being with a girlfriend a social situation. It's more of a sandwich situation if I may.Also mind that he verbally conceeded that we don't just assume it was the fat guy.B. Albert McNugget's arguments are the opposite of mine, and are only based on his three years of middle school science. My four years of middle school science contradict that. Also, Morgan Freeman agrees with me. Fat farts protect us from sun radiation. And as a ginger, I can tell you that fat people need to start farting a lot more.5. I'm Smexy and I Know ItA. Think about Pro's source for a moment. He wants you to take advice from the Rich Over-Rated Judgemental Assholez of America. Do you call that credible? Because I really don't. And either way, that gap is miles away from being significant.B. Kathy Bates: Conceeded sexyRupert Grint: You jest.Tracy Morgan: He conceeded.Conan O'Brian: He conceeded.Santa Claus: Verbal concession. (It's actually spelled "Claus", "Clause" is the end of a contract, and has formed a common misconception since the Tim Allen movie.)MassiveDump: Thank you, but the face in my profie picture is the look I give the toilet afterwards. My normal face is far uglier.C. Nobody likes sass. Even if they did, a fat sassy chick is far more of a turn on, source Morgan Freeman............................... Oh yes he does.6. Physical ActivityA. Football: Linemen don't necessarily have to be versatile.Golf: Framework. Baseball: Not quite framework, but definitely assuming that no fat people can throw, catch or run.Basketball: Racist. and Framework on Black People.Sumo Wrestling: It doesn't matter who watches it. The idea is, Fat people have their place in physical activity.B. Watching fat people falling is not horrifying, unless they're mortibly obese. So why did I ignore this? You guessed it. Framework.7. NoticeabilityA. It's far less expensive to pull the pranks fat people can pull if you don't have to buy the pillows. Meaning, better for the economy.B. There is only one Osama Bin Laden. ans also Framework. The less-than massive but still overweight can still do an excellent job in the Army.C. Fat people have control over blaring trumpets. Burning hair is completely spontaneous, making pulling a prank as a ginger impossible.As a ginger, I would know this just a little bit better than Piggy Bank up there.Ginger Probs1. Fire ControlA. I am not a liar. It hurts when people assume we have control over our disabilities. Actually, I find this to be bullying.B. You just ticked off the fandom with your slander. Never tick off the fandom. 2. Combustion Pro conceeded.3. No HappinessHoneslty, Fat Albert. You can't just dismiss all my arguments by calling me a robot. I thought we were going to avoid outrageous arguments.So yeah, Pro conceeded. 4. Irish JigPro suggests I dance on the street after agreeing that I'd get my @ss kicked doing so.Nobody sees the logic.Nobody.5. The Pot of GoldOnly 2% of gingers are leprechauns, you racist carp. No. Fat Albert still hasn't argued against Rainbows being round, meaning there is no end, meaining there is no pot of gold you racist carp.I'd Rather Be A Chubby Polynesian Sex God than a Ginger

You can't call it a claim, when the entire society we live in reflects on the damages of machine-like living. Secondly, machine-like living is tied to damaged childhoods. Third, you can see that deep inside machine-liker livers, there is a very hurt child by the way they react to feelings and emotions. Therefore machine-like living is a weakness and a disease to the human brain which should be based on heart and mind, not machine. You just don't understand because you're an idiot. Grow up, kid. Stop ruining everyone's discussions with your tiny knowledge pocket.

As those gentlemen who are regularly out on the pull in the pubs and clubs of Britain will readily testify, there is an increasingly desperate shortage of attractive women to choose from in this country. Yes, there are a few girls with attractive personalities (which is very important of course), but you would have a hard job finding one that didn't also have a dirty great toilet on her. For those of you lucky enough to live in countries where most girls do not fall into the category of "fat slags", here's a typical assortment of the sort of foul-mouthed munters the average Saturday night offers English gentlemen out on the lash: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.cupcakepdx.com... Now, contrast that with the sort of Asian babes a man about town in the Far East gets to choose from: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://a66.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... http://photos-897.friendster.com... So, when it comes to the dash for gash, most British blokes are obliged to either accept some third rate tart or go home empty handed. But why us and not Japanese, Korean or Chinese guys? That's because British women's average weight has increased dramatically over recent years. http://www.esrc.ac.uk... So what is the Government doing about it? Well, they have implemented a cross-department strategy to tackle obesity, but as the figures show, it has failed. Miserably. http://www.dh.gov.uk... But wait, my totty-deprived British chums, do not despair! I have the solution, and here it is: Since most girls spend a great deal of time reading fashion magazines and waste a hell of a lot of money shopping for clothes, it would be fair to conclude that fashionable clothes are important to them, right? So why not ban the manufacture for sale of all dresses over UK size 12 (UK) / 40 (EU) / 10 (US) and make the overweight women wear either old dresses, homemade dresses or coal sacks with holes cut into them for the neck and arms? That would provide a real incentive for girls to shed the pounds and thus provide British men with a decent selection of nice, fit birds to choose from on a Saturday night. I can't see how there could be any objection to this proposal, but since the Government hasn't already adopted it, I assume there must be some flaw in the plan that I have missed. Perhaps my opponent can spot something?

I am just agreeing to this to get it out of the feed, it is obviously bad for people, people understand that. That is in extreme cases though. This is you trying to prove a point, not an argument. So please refrain from doing stuff like this on a debate website.

A Note For VotersMy opponent and I have come the agreement that the sources points will be replaced by hilarity points. Please consider this while voting. Thank you :DNow let's do this.1. SwimmingMy opponent (I will refer to him for now as Fat Albert) argues that fat people are worse off than gingers because they have a little extra flab. This argument can't prove that fat people are worse off, because due to us gingers' pale skin tones, we face problems of our own: ^My cousin, Yao Chang DongI also used to be overweight, and can confirm that burn lines make one far more self-conscious than being a fatass. Especially in America, where absolutely everyone is a fatass. Fat Albert then goes on with some bullfart about how fat people sink. That statement is so far from true. Any idiot can tell you that due to buoyancy, a fat man can tread water without any effort being put forth. And according to AmericanRedheadedCross. org, more than 40% of heart attacks are caused by gingers in speedos, while only 3% are cause by fat people. And most gingers can't go swimming anyway, because if they do so much as make direct contact with sunlight, they start violently peeing until they die of dehydration. This, in fact, is what caused the death of my uncle, Tyrone Jacquan Garcia III.2. Looking PregnantThe impacts of this here argument are not as severe as Fat Albert perceives them to be. Fat men can get anything they want foodwise just by saying, "The baby wants a beer" and it can pass as a joke. And while speaking of jokes, fat men can also benefit from looking pregnant by using it as a goldmine of humor, which is how people like Chris Farley made it big (no pun intended). And as for fat women looking pregnant, That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. At what point does this: Begin looking like this:. .. .. .. .. .. .. Quit kidding yourself, Fat Albert.3. Walking Up StairsWhat my opponent (Fat Albert) is referring to here is the unfortunate event with stairs that occurred to Po the Kung Fu Panda just after 9/11. However, like 9/11, while these events are tragic, they actually don't happen as often as we'd like to believe. And as a matter of fact, gingers have a far harder time climbing up flights of stairs than fat people. Can you guess why? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .That's right. .. .Their shoes have no soles. But seriously, climbing stairs with government-mandated ginger shoes is impossibly difficult and, in many instances, has lead to sprained ankles, broken metatarsals, and worst of all. .. .. .athlete's foot. 4. Farting and Fat People"If your mom farts in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it still makes a sound. " -Morgan Freeman, always right. This is another case of fat people being over-sensitive. It's not that we always assume it's the fat guy, the fact is, it's just always the fat guy. The fat guy always farts. It's just the way it always tends to happen. But it's not a bad thing. The nutrients in flab mix with the methane gas emitted by fat-farts. When these nutrients are released into the atmosphere, they help build up the ozone layer to assist in protecting the Earth's inhabitants from much of the sun's harmful radiation. But ginger farts have the ability to melt faces of those that the farter loves. From experience, I've sent four girlfriends to the hospital. It sucks.5. Being Attractive. Now Fat Albert is just being silly. Let's take turns naming off fat people and gingers:Kathy Bates: Attractive. Conan O'Brian: Not Attractive. Tracy Morgan: Attractive. Rupert Grint: Not Attractive. Santa Claus: Attractive. MassiveDump: Should Kill Himself. ---Attractive Fat People > Attractive Gingers.6. Physical Activity Football: Someone needs to be a lineman and it sure as Hell won't be me. Golf: There are golf carts these days, grandpa. Baseball: Fat people are not impaired as far as pitching, catching, and throwing. Swimming: Also see my argument about buoyancy. Track/Cross Country: Lol. Basketball: Fat guys are like a wall. You just can't get past those badasses. And let's not forget. .. FACKING SUMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHS.7. Noticeability There are many pranks that only fat people can pull off. Examples include, but are not limited to, steamrolling, putting their large underwear in someone's bed, standing in the middle of a door, standing in the middle of a fire exit, and, of course, setting their friend's house on fire. And anyway, do you think being a ginger doesn't make you noticeable? .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Because I beg to differ. And Now on to Gingers, Because I said I Wouldn't Argue Heart Disease in a Troll Debate and I Meant it. 1. The Ability to Control And Manipulate Fire at Will. First of all, what's going on in the above image does not seem one bit voluntary to me. Secondly, what Fat Albert is ignoring is that you don't have to be a ginger to control fire. Anyone who has seen The Last Airbender (the show, not the God-awful movie) can tell you that there is not a single firebender on that show who is a ginger.2. Can Burst Into Flames Burning Everyone Around Them. Spontaneous Human Combustion is not voluntary, and it is not a joke. I have harmed so many of the ones I lived by doing it; it is far from a pleasant experience. Fat people don't have to experience that kind of thing. I would consider that a better life.3. No Soul Which Means No Emotions which Means NO FEELING HAPPINESS EVEN AT THE SIGHT OF THE BIRTH OF YOUR OWN DAUGHTER (or for me the sight of a cheeseburger more likely).4. Gingers are Naturally Good at Doing an Irish Jig! .. .yeah. I bet that's not gonna stop anyone from KICKING MY @SS!5. The Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow. >Rainbows are round. >Implying we're all leprechauns. >Proving that we suffer from racism. >the KKK kills gingers. Fat people got it pretty good right now, if you ask me. Conclusion: Being Fat > Being Scum of the Earth.

Definitons. Fat: the presence of excess fat in a person or animal Beautiful: pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically Links:http: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... The premise of this debatte is wrong : Fat is not beautiful! What my opponent meant was fat people are not beautifull. So are fat people beautifull? Let's remember the premise fat people are not beautifull If I can proof that at least one fat people is beautifull I win. definiton of beautifull being pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically I only have to proof that there are people interested in fat people and I win ! there are people interested in fat people go lock up porn pages if you don't belief me!