Question: Should Individuals be Permitted to Engage in Insider Trading?

Numerous activities akin to gambling are currently lawful and supervised. What distinguishes gambling from engaging in the stock market? In both scenarios, individuals are wagering funds with the anticipation of a specific result. Similar to how expertise in horse racing or gaming can enhance your likelihood of winning, trading in bonds, stocks, currencies, or derivatives is a gamble that your economic insight surpasses that of other investors. Why should one type of online speculation be permitted while the other is prohibited?

First, I want to say that I accept his proposed definitional change. Second, have a look back to round one. Here I defined free speech as being a right. It isn't an obligation. The government, just like everyone else, should have the right to remain silent. I am only contending that this should not limit people's right to speak if they so choose. I am not saying that if I wandered up to the Pentagon tomorrow and asked the guy at reception for passcodes to all the US nuclear silos, that he should give them to me. Rather, I contend that he should be free to do so. Except that he won't unless he's incredibly corrupt, in which case giving him the passcodes was probably a really bad idea and he would have told the terrorists secretly anyway. Indeed it would be logical for the secretary to lie to the would-be terrorist, with the intention of catching him red-handed. My opponent therefore needs to do more than appeal to the need to keep some information secret. He needs to show why allowing free speech will mean secrets are told. That's what I'm disputing. I suspect my opponent may be confusing freedom of information with freedom of speech. Bearing that in mind, I shall now proceed to focus on my three contentions:1. Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech? My opponent more or less concedes that they cannot, as he agrees that politicians use it and that this should not be accepted. However, he argues that this information has nothing to do with national security, and that while the system is open to abuse, that cost is outweighed by the benefit of not giving the RIRA the latest US defense schematics. Firstly, that's a faulty benefit. No defense contractor in the world would just hand over their schematics because some foes asked politely. Secondly, the cost of the abuse cannot be known. We shouldn't trust the politicians to tell us when we can speak because we usually have no way of knowing whether classified information has been classified for a legitimate or illegitimate purpose, until long after the harm has been done. My opponent also states that just because a minority abuse the system doesn't mean we should assume a given politician will. If we accept that as true, then it must also equally apply to my case. Just because a few minorities want to hurt a given nation doesn't mean we should assume a given person will. I don't think my opponent really believes that. Unless he justifies otherwise, my first point stands.2. Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth? To open this argument I'd like to remind everybody of the Wikileaks example I raised last round. Wikileaks exposed the truth, and the United States is apparently no less secure now because of it. Knowing the truth does not increase a terrorist's resolve. I provided strong empirical evidence that knowing more in fact dissuades terrorists from terrorism. I also told you that terrorists are unlikely to learn critical defense truths even with completely free speech, because the government is as free to not tell as they are to tell. My opponent's argument, however, appears to presuppose "universal availability" under my model. To run this argument, first he needs to show why allowing free speech will mean secrets are told. He has not done so. The point must stand.3. Will the truth be told? My opponent makes two arguments. The first suffers from the same flaw as his round two argument, that it presupposes free speech means secrets getting revealed. Again, my opponent must do more to justify that. Secondly he argues a bit of a one-sentence wonder: "the purpose is not to lie to the public" but to "protect" them. I never said the purpose was to spread misinformation. I rather said that this is what happens. The purpose is to deny people access to the truth, be that to protect them or protect a corrupt politician's interests. But I took that one step further and told you that when people don't know the truth, they will believe any myth that covers the gap. Myths can only be rubbished with truths. That's why the truth is so fundamentally vital to protect. In conclusion, national interests are always important. But what nation proclaims itself the land of the secure? The land of defense at freedom's cost? This is about protecting your rights, because I have shown again and again that states have nothing to gain from keeping their citizens in the dark.

Before I conclude, I wish to clarify my meaning on authoritarian movements will often promise welfare in exchange for greater support of an expanded state. The two do not need to be linked, as a truly liberal candidate may also offer an expansion of welfare. However, in order to win more voters, authoritarians are much more likely to increase welfare. Their purposes are more nefarious, as that they typically portray themselves behaving like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but in reality they keep a sizeable portion of the net increase of revenue for themselves and for state purposes. Now I will conclude... Welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote because doing so would allow them to take more from all the hard working people, self-sufficient people and give more to themselves. This increase in taxation ultimately is bad for everyone who pays taxes, and benefits only the ruling classes and those receiving public aide. Although not every person who is on welfare is wicked and selfish, it is certain that there are those individuals who are just that, and will vote only to that which benefits them, even if it comes at the expense of all working people. Even those who are ultimately good may be forced to vote for those individuals proposing tax hikes not out of selfishness, but out of necessity. This allows predatory politicians who wish to expand their power to pander to this demographic in order to garner support for an increase in taxes at the expense of all contributing members of society. So, I conclude by saying that legislation which prevents those dependent upon public aide from voting actually preserves democratic values and protects the popular consent of all working people. Thank you, opposition, for your insight and arguments.

The purpose of this debate is to try and stump the opponent using reasoning and logic alone. Neither side will present any factual evidence to support a claim or sources to back up anything. No statistics, no quotes from professionals in the area, just cold hard logic. During this debate, both parties are allowed to assume their opponents beliefs as stated outside this debate. My opponent knows what I am talking about, so I will not elaborate merely to observe privacy. Round 1 is for acceptance, no other rules need mentioning, besides the usual, semantics, trolling etc... Dont do it. Good luck to my opponent, let this be a very thought provoking debate.

I am boxed in by the topic of this debate, so if you will humor me I would like to expand my con argument into the following, "Truly free individuals are not required to do anything for the benefit of others in a free society." I think it matches your argument and it would actually allow me to better debate you. You'll see through the following argument why I feel this way. Truly free individuals cannot be members of any society. A common misunderstanding of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is that the Natural Law, which he described as "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one : And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." From this phrase, Thomas Jefferson lifted the statement, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," which has replaced the true law of nature that was wholly described by Locke in the first chapter of his Second Treatise John Locke goes on to further explain the conduct and carrying out of this natural law. Crime and punishment in the state of nature comes from each person being their own magistrate. It assumes that reason governs all individuals, which would be pretty fantastic, and it also assumes that if one persons life is ended, that another person will take it upon themselves to provide that punishment."Every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal" John Locke goes on to further explain, "By the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon on, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed." A bit later he tacks on rather dramatically, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." However, John Locke goes on to explain even more, that even in the state of nature that "each transgression may be punished [with death], and with so much severity, as will suffice it to make an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like." So, as Life and Health are supposedly a right by natural law, a lot can be done that is a forfeiture of your rights. According to Locke, to be a free individual requires, quite literally, a dedication to the enforcement of justice, which is an indication that it is not a choice to doll out justice, but an obligation. This is not an agreement, it is dictated by reason and to not doll out justice is likewise a violation of the natural law, which is a forfeiture of your rights. To address my expanded debate topic, which you are more than welcome to choose to ignore… A free citizen is a citizen of a free society. A free individual has no fellow citizens. Therefore, they cannot be obliged to any debt to them. The phrase "social contract" is thrown around an awful lot in discussions of political thought, so I will attempt to steer away from it. I will just describe what is often meant by it, and it will more likely resemble John Locke's arguments than others who are well known for it, such as Hobbs and bunch of French intellectuals who never bothered consulting reality until reality put their heads on the block. At any rate, in theory a state of nature exists. Locke, who benefited from the patronage of the Earl of Salisbury after installing a drain to remove fluid from the Earl's abdomen was a great proponent of the American frontier and wilderness. The Earl was very involved in the development of the Virginia colony. This wilderness inspired Locke, and was often used as an example of his state of nature. This is frequently used as an example by him, and it is unfortunate that I suspect that there is no where a person may go to find themselves in a state of nature. I guess, historically, a state of nature also existed a long, long, time ago. In Locke's Second Treatise he develops the argument that people tend to migrate away from the state of nature into what he describes as a "civil society." This civil society relies on the social contract, which is the notion that a government governs with the consent of the governed. This was viewed as a "radical" idea when it developed, however historically every government has governed with the consent of the governed. Unrest of an appropriate magnitude always leads to revolution, however John Locke's Second Treaties was developed and published as a justification for the Glorious Revolution, and the "consent of the governed" was meant to indicate that good ol' William and Mary did have a right to the throne, because that James guy just didn't have consent. So, with that back ground in mind, the notion of a civil society as an alternative to the state of nature was born. It was also considered by Locke to be inevitable. What Locke literally said of the civil society, is; "Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit everyone his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society. And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into a society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government, or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made: for hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require to the execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a common-wealth, by setting up a judge on the eath, with authority to determine all controversies and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth; which judge is the legislative, or magistrates appointed by it. And where-ever there are any number of men, whoever associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, they are still in the state of nature." So, a free society is one that does its best to serve the life, health, and to protect the property of the individuals in it, but by joining it you are expected to give up your rights to the state of nature and the natural law. So, if you are participating in a society, whether a free society or not, you must give up certain rights which you were entitled to, and consent to the rule of the law or society. Should you wish to give up this civil society, you are more than welcome to. However, by using roads, or schools, or anything that is created in any way by funding which comes from the civil society is a statement of your intentions to continue to participate in a civil society. So, to be a truly free individual, you must leave behind all benefits of our civil and free society. One cannot be a free individual in a civil society. Such a thing cannot, and does not exist. Pretensions of being a free individual is actually harmful to a civil society. It is not that a free individual is coerced into being a member of our society, individuals choose to participate. They are free to be members of a civil society, but to become a free individual they must exit our society. To exit our society, is to remove any debt of obligation to that society, and then their only obligation is to reason and to the enforcement of the natural law. This argument is part of the essence as to why I am a secessionist, and not a libertarian. Libertarian ideals are founded in a misunderstanding of what it means to be "free." Secession is a fracturing of a civil society into separate civil societies.

I believe it is the persons right to decide what they want to do with their body. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't do with our bodies. Our bodies are our own business and if we choose to make this an occupation we should be free to.

Individual human rights and the liberties of the people should transcend or out-rank the rights given to corporations. Corporations should not be able to do business in a way that hinders, dampens or impedes upon the rights of the individual or the general public. shared BoP Opponent must prove that the rights of a corporation deserve more consideration or jurisdiction than those held by an individual or the people.

Please do not accept without permission. Write a topic in the comments and your preferred position. Inspiration: I can, if the world be forgot in the vastness of space, and if the legend of our voids in our hearts be true, and if the market man does be greedy with our money, spending it unwisely and wastefully throwing it away; through the sadness and joyous moods spreading in our dear planet earth; with a desire that burns like fire, melting the whole of the ice of doubt, without any inconsistency with my persistence along with perspiration, nothing which without much of those virtues that were uphold and will be uphold throughout the age, as contributed to within our classes that teach us our morals and beliefs that influence our decision and ultimately our life, and which will never be belonging to which of those that are not forever set in stone and hardly ever reaching our paragons of philosophy—yet furthermore lest be our souls be blessed or in the worst case be doomed to die, nevermore shall humankind inspire, any more than monkeys will evolve to overtake our form, any more than a drunk man drinks the drops of what causes him to lose his sobriety, any more than the Egyptians’ incredible Sphinx which outsmarted all except the mighty Oedipus, and finally our weaknesses that are spun out and stressed upon on Fate’s needle-and-thread, piercing through our bodies, without any doubt, so let us be like a team that works, churning out products similar to the factory of time and space itself, all four dimensions crossing and turning, perpendicular to each other and paradoxically, simultaneously parallel, which are altogether strong and shielded with no turn away from those which taunt us and entice us to move differently, and hunt down that of which haunts the malice in our souls and, being the captain on the ship that stays even when it sinks, being the ferocious lion that claws down against even hundreds of prey, being the long mop that wipes off any big stain, never lose hope, never draw short, and never lie down; those who go without following our footsteps being cowardly, running in fear, in selfish vain, so as God's will be punished accordingly; and so let the rest become one with my body, so that as one, accomplish anything!

the fact of the matter is, a good debater can continue to debate whether there opponent is willing or not. I will conclude with the idea that Criminal records need to be used for the Health, Safety, and Well-being of an entire corporation.

Foreword Since Con admitted his mistake in putting up the R1 case, it's up to voters on the conduct point.. Framework Con retorts that we have to look to morality in this debate because it centers on values, but this isn't the case at all. When evaluating political philosophy, it is possible for one to be influenced by ethical theory; however, this is merely descriptive ethics, not normative ethics. That discussion may be influenced by moral principles does not imply that proving a moral imperative is necessary for victory. As I noted, it's perfectly fine for Con and I to make moral arguments, but the resolution is not intended to be framed as a moral imperative for the state. Con attempts to argue that even my "you should go to the doctor" statement is a moral claim, but it's one which makes use of a colloquial notion of "should", which implies "it would be beneficial for you to go to the doctor", rather than "you're morally obligated to see a physician". Moreover, I would like to point out that Con is making a slippery slope argument. He claims that we shouldn't have "unlimited freedom", because it would force us to accept freedom to murder, rape, and so on. First of all, I never advocated "unlimited freedom", so his objection is irrelevant. Second of all, we're talking specifically about the freedom to use drugs, not to initiate violence against other individuals. This distinction between limitations on self-harm and limitations on harming others is actually central to my case. Arguments Argumentation Ethics and Self-Ownership There are many theories of rights encompassed in ought-ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology; however, these theories all fall victim to problems of normative contingency and crushing subjectivity. Argumentation ethics explains rights as presuppositions resulting from engaging in the act of argument, rather than engaging in violence. Hans Hoppe argues [http://mises.org... (starting around 339-340)] that we must necessarily allocate scarce resources--our bodies. By the very act of making an argument, I am exercising self-ownership. By arguing, my opponent and I both acknowledge each others' right to control exclusively our own bodies. In turn, we see that the nonaggression principle is also presupposed. Thus, communication with others necessarily assumes self-ownership and nonaggression. Should we attempt to engage in force, we must abandon argumentation, as we are, by using force, necessarily discarding that which is required to engage in argumentation. Conversely, we cannot therefore argue against that which is required for argument. My opponent cannot attempt to convince me to become a slave without running into a contradiction, as he must suppose free and autonomous agency to engage me (an idea originally pioneered by Habermas [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. Discourse ethics is distinguished from traditional "ought-morality", as it does not tell us what we ought to do--rather, it frames human action in a way which explains to us what it is logically impossible to do. Consequently, Con cannot make arguments which contradict concepts like nonaggression and self-ownership without contradicting himself by arguing to undermine that which is fundamentally necessary for communicative rationality. On Meth and Self-Harm I accept the harms, but contend they have no impact. Con seems to be presupposing that banning, regulating, or otherwise penalizing self-harm is justified. Whereas my discussion of presuppositions (such as self-ownership and nonaggression) is justified on the basis that we're arguing (the act of argument implicitly validating those presuppositions), Con is merely fiating presuppositions which have yet to be justified. Legal action against any substance is unjustified, regardless of self-harm concerns. It's true that the government could simply cease with argument and initiate violence through taxes, bans, and regulation; however, at the point that violence is used in lieu of discourse, we can no longer argue about justification. In other words, there is no way for Con to warrant this violence, as he cannot logically justify action to undermine that which he must presuppose to argue his justification. On Meth and Society 1. Con cites how cheap, easy, and addictive meth is on the black market, and uses that as a justification for a ban. Though saying "X is really addictive, therefore we should ban it" is, despite the emotional appear, a glaring non sequitur, the part about meth being cheap and easy provokes a bit of economic analysis. Earlier, Con opposed the War on Drugs in terms of marijuana, but argued that we shouldn't let that trick us into letting all drugs go free. Apart from the fact that the "improvements" in meth use (e.g. higher prices and lower use) were basically only temporary as the US heaped on a few billion dollars more (not even counting that violent crime rates didn't shrink) [http://people.ucsc.edu...], Con may still still argue that we have to maintain the WOD for symbolic reasons, as a show of our tough attitude on a social pollutant. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold up to the economics. The WOD has the effect that sugar tariffs had on sugar and HFCS (sugar, while not being healthy, is at least better than the zero-nutrition syrup, much like how some drugs, while not being good for you, are obviously much better than meth). When putting tariffs on sugar, prices spiked, and HFCS became the cheapest, easiest thing to mass-produce [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Similarly, the WOD succeeded in driving up the prices and risks of many drugs. Production costs increased, finding ways to distribute became more difficult, and so on. For people just looking for a high, meth offered significantly lower costs, both in terms of money and in terms of risk (not to mention the "forbidden fruit" or "potency" effect highlighting the backlash of prohibitive policies) [http://mises.org...]. On the supply side, savvy dealers can make massive profits because of conditions creating increased demand for meth, sometimes playing with returns of up and around 500% [http://nymag.com...] [http://www5.semo.edu...]. Obviously it varies, but it's often tremendous. 2. His second argument about crime also doesn't offer a compelling reason to ban meth. First, if you're going to punish an individual for a crime involving harm of others, then the drug is irrelevant vis-a-vis crime. Second, the principle here is basically that we can ban things to prevent crime; however, there's no reason to believe this is the case, as A) he's already admitted that he's okay with marijuana, for which arguments can be made about committing a crime while high, and B) he would have to commit himself to banning things like rage and sadness, since those emotions can also severely compromise one's judgment to the point of committing a criminal act. Third, look to the contradictions I listed earlier regarding argumentation ethics--he can't argue a ban without having to abandon the very things allowing him to argue his justification (which is ironic, since he criticized meth as detrimental to autonomy). Fourth, his study also says that meth use isn't significantly predictive about violent crime recidivism, which means that it could just be going back to jail for drugs (which means that his study doesn't justify meth bans). Fifth, you can get the advantages of restorative justice/rehab through private intermediaries, like contracts with insurance companies and employers to refrain from drug use, and mandatory rehab and probation (like higher premiums or routine drug tests) as a stipulation for breaking the terms, which means we don't need coercion. Good luck to Con in R2.

President Sarkozy of France, a staunch right-wing capitalist, recently said of the free market economy: ï¿½ L'autorï¿½gulation pour rï¿½gler tous les problï¿½mes, c'est fini. Le laissez-faire, c'est fini. Le marchï¿½ qui a toujours raison, c'est fini. ï¿½ http://www.lefigaro.fr... Which transliterates into English as: "Self-regulation of all problems is finished. The free-market economy is finished. The markets are always right philosophy is finished." You only find out who has been swimming naked when the tide goes out. Given level of incompetence, corruption and greed that the current economic crisis has exposed, it has become apparent that most investment bankers have been financially skinny-dipping for years. Given the enormous cost of their ineptitude to the ordinary taxpayer, the markets should be much more tightly regulated in order to prevent any future reputation of the current fiasco. Even devout capitalists such as President Sarkozy realise that, and governments around the world will, rightly, introduce legislation to put an end to deregulated free markets. Thank you.


Question: Should Individuals Be Permitted to Engage in Insider Trading?

Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned.

If free trade were so beneficial, there would be no need for a complex agreement that takes years to finalize. The reality is that there are compelling reasons to restrict trade, primarily because free trade often fails to deliver on its promises. Economic impacts on individuals are significant, as governments impose trade restrictions to protect their citizens, economic security, society, and environment. When multinational corporations take over local sectors, their profits often leave the country and are not reinvested, leading to a capital outflow that reduces the funds available to employers, resulting in lower wages. Unsustainable imports cannot be maintained, as trade drives prices down, which is a self-evident truth.

For US citizens, free trade isn't the only way to make goods affordable while siphoning off profits; currency controls can achieve the same effect. China, for instance, has a long-standing policy of manipulating its currency to make its goods more affordable and undermine other markets. This has resulted in the US's primary business being "making China richer," as 70% of America's GDP is from consumer spending, most of which is on foreign goods, primarily from China. Now, the US wants even cheaper goods by opening up to more competition from countries like Japan. This has led to the loss of many manufacturing jobs to China, making goods more affordable at the checkout but failing to consider the impact on wages. This affects everyone, even those not directly competing with foreign countries.

Tying prices to world prices has another significant issue: world prices are far more volatile than local prices. This leads to absurd situations, such as New Zealand milk being cheaper in Europe than in New Zealand. More dangerously, a financial crisis in one country (e.g., Brunei or Mexico) affects price signals everywhere else, rather than just in that one country, allowing for quicker capital outflows. If we are one global village and there's a plague, we all die. If we are a team of villages protecting our interests, we are collectively stronger. These are legitimate reasons why governments impose restrictions on trade.

Social costs are another concern. Without these protections, governments create a race to the bottom. Multinationals invest in countries that are the most profitable for them, which means the cheapest. This leads to the exploitation of poor people in poor countries, as other countries attempt to attract investment by becoming poorer. Governments reduce standards, civil liberties, and political freedoms. When business can dictate government behavior, democracy is undermined, and governments become corporatist

1. So, we all earn their keep. Mental illness is random, it can strike anyone. It could have stricken you. Part of society is paying for things that don't directly help us. You pay for public school even if you have no children, you pay for roads if you don't bike, etc. These people are a given of society and should not be expected to pay for their keep. Those people do it willingly, or, if it is unwilling, such as human trafficking, it is a violation of human rights. 2. Yes, but those people who dress like that are not harming anyone. Sure they may be insulting people, but it is not near the level of distaste as it is to poke and prod a live, breathing human for kicks. 3. I'm not sure people want insane and possibly dangerous people at their parties. What about lawsuits? Finally, this idea is no different than slavery because inmates could not opt out of it and would be unable to do so. Keeping them is not slavery because they would hurt people if they were not kept in that way. Thus I may conclude my argument. Thanks brian for this humorous debate.

"Whereas before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first. The landowner has only gained the ability to exclude others from the use of land." The pro side has made several assumptions without any basis or facts to backup to his assumptions. As the Con side I effectively showed he did not have the basis for the Join Capitalism Fund the last round. Now the pro side insists that before that in the past any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it. Where did the pro side arrive at this conclusion? The information has yet to be provided. Did the individual who could go to any "piece of land" have a legal right to the land? If not it wasn't his property because property is a legal concept. The pro side has unintentionally undermined the basis of his argument. If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that suggests there where was no governing body. So what would prevent individuals from fighting over the same piece of land? After all, " any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it." The pro side undermined his argument that everyone has an equal claim to the land. If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that is not equal. There is no authority to make the claim that every has an equal claim to any land that they choose as the pro suggests. Therefore his equal claim that he mentioned in the first round was refuted by his own claims in the second round. I asked the pro side for his basis for the equal claim. Now he says the individual, therefore it is inherently not equal because people could claim any piece of land as says in the second round. The pro side has not shown the authority who dictates that every one has the equal claim. Therefore there is no equal claim to land. Therefore, the points that the pro side made later have no basis. According to the pro's own scenario, Person A, Person B, and Person C "could go to any piece of land and labor upon it." As, I said earlier such a scenario would lead to severe problems. For example, if Person A and Person B wanted to cultivate the same soil and farm animals on the same plot of land. That occurrence may lead to a dispute or conflict of sorts. What responsibility does Person A have to pay to Persons B and C? After all they would of contested for the same piece of land in the past. "They are losing the prosperity that they had prior to someone who has given them nothing in return. The landowner is gaining all the prosperity and ability to work land freely while taking away that same right from those who didn't claim it." Again, an assumption with no basis. How can someone lose something they never possessed? The pro side again has used the term "right" which he used as the legal concept. Yet his earlier implication suggests that there weren't any laws so an individual could go anywhere he wanted to claim land. So no one could have rights as he now selectively proclaims. "Con has let go every argument for the actual establishment of the Join Capitalism Fund and decided instead to focus on the existence of land as private property." How can the pro side make such a bold claim when he has no basis for his argument? Readers, don't be deceived by the pro's feint. In order for his Join Capitalism Fund , he must show proof of the equal claim that everyone has to the land. Otherwise the pro side has no premise to base the Join Capitalism Fund. He has not shown why Person A should be paying Persons B and C. The pro side has continued with assumptions but has yielded to show proof of these assumptions. The pro side has also committed a fallacy by assuming the con's argument. The con side has yet to mention private property(til this round) but pro side makes this claim. The pro side is intentionally attempting to negate his premise so he can selectively argue the points of the Join Capitalism Fund that he wishes. The burden of proof is on the pro side to even show that the Join Capitalism Fund has a basis. The Con side does not need to address other points about the fund until the pro side has defined the basis of the Join Capitalism Fund. Until then, the pro side's points about the fund itself are moot because they are not based on anything except opinion and autobiographical content. The argument itself has to be proven by the pro side. Yet the pro has been shown yet to do so.

In an effort to maintain a fair and equal debate, I will forgo this round, and we will (should) move directly into rebuttals in the final round. See comments.

Thanks for accepting Famousdebater and good luck my friend! Framework: Based on the definitions given in round one, we see this debate rests on ethics. That is, whether the individual or society is “ethically paramount.” Thus, it should be obvious that the framework for this debate could only reasonably be set on how morality is determined. Once determined all that is left is to apply ethics to our question. An Intro To Ethics: Utilitarianism Famousdebater and I Identify as Utilitarian’s, and as it is widely accepted moral world view. Here is a basic overview of utilitarian ethics. Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done, or in other words, what is ethical. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end.” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2)This is basic utilitarianism, The Greatest good for the greatest number. As Utilitarianism is the ethic both my opponent and I subscribe to and is a sound moral philosophy, it ought to be the preferred moral framework by which we determine this debate. Thus we can determine which philosophy, Collectivism or Individualism, ought to be preferred by observing which produces the Greatest good for the greatest number. My Case: I. The Harm “Individualism has negative social repercussions in practice” Whenever we observe an increase in society's individualistic values, we always see it accompanied with an increase in destructive societal tendencies. The first time we can see this happening in human history is right at its dawn, with the Neolithic Revolution. Prior to it, human societies were largely egalitarian -- the social bonds between family members held together large clans in which every individual was looked after; resources were distributed roughly equally, and internal strife was virtually non-existent [4]. But with the advent of the Neolithic Revolution and its associated innovations, this collectivist way of life was greatly diminished, and individualistic social phenomena such as private property ownership, social stratification, and wealth inequality became the centerpieces of human societies [5]. From that point onwards, human history has been notably more violent, with wars, slavery, tension between classes, and crime becoming the norm. This trend has continued throughout history. Events motivated by the pursuit of individualistic values have always resulted in a society which is worse off than before. This is most clearly evident in the French Revolution, with the bourgeoisie and their desire for greater personal liberties coming at the grave expense of social stability. Even today in Western countries, we witness that trend manifest itself in the contrast between urban centers (the hubs of modern ideals such as individuality) and rural areas (where collectivist communities as described previously still exist to some extent). Unsurprisingly, signs of social decay are far more prevalent in urban centers, with violent crime rates and poverty levels being 3 to 4 times higher in cities than the countryside [6]. Individualism simply does not work out in practice -- it attempts to simultaneously promote everyone's conflicting self-interests, which inevitably leads to tension, violence, and the degeneration of the social fabric. In this way, Individualism (ironically) tends to hurt the average individual's chance of success -- it's self-refuting. II. Collectivism increases the chances of individual success The logic underlying this is simple. A society, by definition, is a group of individuals. So when we "value the interests of society", we are really just valuing the interests of the largest possible number of individuals within that society -- we are valuing the interests of the majority. And since an individual is statistically more likely to part of the majority than the minority (duh), collectivism ensures that any given individual is more likely to have their interests protected than not. Thus, on a purely theoretical & statistical level, collectivism increases the probability of individual prosperity. However, this is not only demonstrable in theory; we can also see empirical examples of this holding true in practice. Just take a look at nature. There is an enormous variety of species which instinctively tend to live in large, collectivist groups -- wolves, elephants, lions, chimpanzees, meerkats, bison, sheep, antelopes, ants, bees, ducks, small fish, and many more fall into this category. There is a reason why such a behavior has become so widely adapted: living in those 'societies', where the group as a whole is valued over each individual animal, has proven to be an evolutionary advantage to the individual animals themselves. It ensures them a much greater chance of survival than they would otherwise have on their own. Moreover, these collectivist species tend to be far, far more abundant and prosperous than solitary ones. Natural selection -- a completely selfishness-oriented mechanism -- clearly indicates that the collectivist lifestyle is beneficial to individuals. For humans specifically, this is all the more true because we are fundamentally social animals. According to anthropologist Paula Grey: "Human beings are social animals. Our lives depend on other humans... We develop and learn about the world around us through the filter of other people. Our connections to others are key to not only our survival, but also to our happiness and the success of our careers... our social networks have [an enormous impact] on our lives. The bottom line is that we are influenced by, and we are able to influence, people up to three degrees removed from us." [3]. In other words, we derive happiness and personal fulfillment from other people, and our social structures require us to directly & indirectly interact with thousands of other people every day in order to prosper. As the socially complex and emotional beings that we are, we *need* to value the welfare of those around us -- the welfare of our society. From all this, we conclude that even under individualism we have to prefer collectivism, essentially making the resolution impossible to negate. III. Collectivism is a more objective version of Individualism Individualism posits that everyone should place paramount ethical value on their own interests. However, this only takes into account the subjective viewpoint of each individual. From an objective point of view, all humans beings are fundamentally the same, and no one person is inherently superior to another. Therefore, *every* individual's interests have equal value; intellectual honesty requires that if I value my own interests, then I also have to value everyone else's just as much -- and it is this concept which forms the basis for collectivism. In other words, Collectivism is essentially just an objective version of Individualism, effectively rendering it to be the more rational philosophy. Conclusion: The Burden of this debate is to demonstrate which philosophy is to be preferred. We have determined this clearly means which produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Collectivism meets this criteria. Individualism in converse has negative repercussions. We can conclude based on these arguments that Individualism is self defeating and that collectivism actually produces the desired results. Thus we see that Collectivism ought to be preferred over Individualism. The resolution is affirmed. Sources: (1) http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (2) http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (3) http://www.aipmm.com... (4) http://www.cavemenworld.com... (5) http://www.d.umn.edu... (6) http://law.jrank.org...

Thanks for Wytled to accept my challenge. I am Pro in this debate, however it says I am Con. That is just one mistake. Secondly, Wylted asked me to debate 16k on this one. I might, however I think it will be much better if you two do a debate with each other.FrameworkThe debate is about we should deny health care to the people who had engaged in illegal organ trading. I will talk about the effects and the consequences of this. My opponent will talk about the consequences and effects. If I fill the BOP, I win the debate. If my opponent fills BOP, he wins.Okay, I will get into my arguments first.ArgumentsBefore I will go to my arguments, I think we need to crack down on the black market and also punish the people involved in illegal organ trading because, it is wrong in principle.1. Underestimates the health care systemMy first argument is that this underestimates the health care system. If you just read the argument title, it is a bad idea. Our team thinks that we need consequences because of this. People should be getting organs under the government health care system, not through the black market. Only through the government system can we ensure that the donated organ was not given out of abuse, Now, if some people obtain organs faster through the black market, then everyone who needs an organ will turn to the black market instead of waiting for the government, which makes bad consequences. Not only illicit organ trade crime, we believe that there should be additional consequences harming the health care system, otherwise there will be some bad effects to the government's health care system, and also to the citizens. I think that this should not happen. If we do this we will underestimate the health care system like it is nothing however, we think that we need special consequences.2. Indirectly subsidizing the black market.Okay, this argument is about if we do not do what the resolution says, it is indirectly subsidizing the black market.If the national health care system continues to subsidize these people who illegally participated in the black market of organ trade, then the state would be indirectly subsidizing the black market. This is principle wrong, which means that we should not do this. That means that the resolution is right and also we have to deny healthcare to these people who engaged in this illegal and harmful organ trading.3. Send a strong messageOkay, my last argument is that it sends a strong message.I think that our policy will have a deterrent effect. Since organ transplanted patient needs long-term health care for their condition, cutting national health care would significantly increase the costs of their medical bills which is good for the patient. We think this will disincentivize many people from engaging in illicit organ trading because, if you do not thing, you have good effects, when if you do engage in the illegal organ trading you won't. Even if the policy fails to deter to everyone, it will at least reduce the black market compared to at first which is a very good thing.ConclusionBecause of these three arguments, I think that we should not support health care to the people who engaged on illegal organ trading. We need to crack down on to the black market and punish the people who engaged in illegal organ trading. Thank you.This is the end of my arguments. Even if my position says Con, I am actually Pro as Wytled has requested. Thank you. I hope Con write his arguments. Vote for Pro.(Actually Con in site header.)Thank you. Over to Pro.Sources1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2. http://www.foxnews.com...3. http://idebate.org...4. http://dsq-sds.org...5. http://newint.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

First, I want to say that I accept his proposed definitional change. Second, have a look back to round one. Here I defined free speech as being a right. It isn't an obligation. The government, just like everyone else, should have the right to remain silent. I am only contending that this should not limit people's right to speak if they so choose. I am not saying that if I wandered up to the Pentagon tomorrow and asked the guy at reception for passcodes to all the US nuclear silos, that he should give them to me. Rather, I contend that he should be free to do so. Except that he won't unless he's incredibly corrupt, in which case giving him the passcodes was probably a really bad idea and he would have told the terrorists secretly anyway. Indeed it would be logical for the secretary to lie to the would-be terrorist, with the intention of catching him red-handed. My opponent therefore needs to do more than appeal to the need to keep some information secret. He needs to show why allowing free speech will mean secrets are told. That's what I'm disputing. I suspect my opponent may be confusing freedom of information with freedom of speech. Bearing that in mind, I shall now proceed to focus on my three contentions:1. Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech? My opponent more or less concedes that they cannot, as he agrees that politicians use it and that this should not be accepted. However, he argues that this information has nothing to do with national security, and that while the system is open to abuse, that cost is outweighed by the benefit of not giving the RIRA the latest US defense schematics. Firstly, that's a faulty benefit. No defense contractor in the world would just hand over their schematics because some foes asked politely. Secondly, the cost of the abuse cannot be known. We shouldn't trust the politicians to tell us when we can speak because we usually have no way of knowing whether classified information has been classified for a legitimate or illegitimate purpose, until long after the harm has been done. My opponent also states that just because a minority abuse the system doesn't mean we should assume a given politician will. If we accept that as true, then it must also equally apply to my case. Just because a few minorities want to hurt a given nation doesn't mean we should assume a given person will. I don't think my opponent really believes that. Unless he justifies otherwise, my first point stands.2. Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth? To open this argument I'd like to remind everybody of the Wikileaks example I raised last round. Wikileaks exposed the truth, and the United States is apparently no less secure now because of it. Knowing the truth does not increase a terrorist's resolve. I provided strong empirical evidence that knowing more in fact dissuades terrorists from terrorism. I also told you that terrorists are unlikely to learn critical defense truths even with completely free speech, because the government is as free to not tell as they are to tell. My opponent's argument, however, appears to presuppose "universal availability" under my model. To run this argument, first he needs to show why allowing free speech will mean secrets are told. He has not done so. The point must stand.3. Will the truth be told? My opponent makes two arguments. The first suffers from the same flaw as his round two argument, that it presupposes free speech means secrets getting revealed. Again, my opponent must do more to justify that. Secondly he argues a bit of a one-sentence wonder: "the purpose is not to lie to the public" but to "protect" them. I never said the purpose was to spread misinformation. I rather said that this is what happens. The purpose is to deny people access to the truth, be that to protect them or protect a corrupt politician's interests. But I took that one step further and told you that when people don't know the truth, they will believe any myth that covers the gap. Myths can only be rubbished with truths. That's why the truth is so fundamentally vital to protect. In conclusion, national interests are always important. But what nation proclaims itself the land of the secure? The land of defense at freedom's cost? This is about protecting your rights, because I have shown again and again that states have nothing to gain from keeping their citizens in the dark.

R1: Acceptance, Opening Position* R2: Argumentation R3: Rebuttal, Argumentation R4: Rebuttal, Argumentation R5: Closing Statements, No Rebuttals, Summary of your Argument** *Opening Position: This is a short explanation as to why people should want to take your view. It is not your main argument but think of it like a thesis statement. **Summary of your Argument: This is an encompassing view of your argument. Basically if a person didn't want to read the rounds your argument should be clearly stated and easily grasped in this statement. It will make it easier for the readers as it's comprehensive and ignores the verbal jousting. -------------------- If one accepts this debate they agree to use this rendition of the 2nd 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.", and while this may be interpreted no other form of this particular passage can be used in this debate. Opening Statement: I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect. I affirm that "well regulated" should be interpreted as community oriented and not governmental no different than a neighborhood watch. I affirm that any laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors is an infringement against the Constitution.

I accept. The con to "should not be used" is "should be used" just to avoid double-negative confusion. The debate is also accepted under the condition that no other significant modification to equipment is considered since no other modifications are proposed.

Firstly, that's six questions (nine if you count the rhetorical ones). Second, my answers, in order, are as follows:1) Do you think an 8 month old baby should be allowed to cast a vote in a democratic election?I don't think the baby should be denied a vote because he or she is 8 months old. Assuming we're talking about a typical 8 month old baby, there are issues of linguistic expression and physical ability to pull a lever at five feet in height that would be obviously prohibitive. Questions of intelligence exist as well, but bluntly, those self-same questions exist for a significant portion of the adult population, and it seems unfair to me to selectively apply a requirement of minimum intelligence to one demographic and not another. Whether there should be a universal minimum intelligence for voting is beyond the scope of this debate. 2) More to the point, do you think there should be any age restrictions for choosing the people who govern our society and order men and women into battle?Again, I freely admit that many characteristics common to eight month old humans are naturally prohibitive. It would be generous to posit that there's even one eight month old on the planet capable of such a weighty office; however, I insist that people should rise and fall on their merits, not their demographic. You are positing that in the event that such an eight month old is found, they should still be denied the right to vote based solely on how long they've been breathing air. I disagree.3) Should we also draft that 8 month old into service?See above. 4) Should we let the 5 year old work in a factory?See above, re: merit-based logic. Note that, compared to the spectrum of the typical eight month old, the typical five year old spectrum presents a statistically significant shift in the bell curve. It is not so generous to assume that there's a single five year old on the planet capable of factory work; indeed, for a mundane task on an assembly line as simple as tying a piece of string onto a product, it's safe to say that the majority of five year olds would be capable of performing the task. On what basis would you deny them the right to compete for such labor?5) Is it ok for a 66 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl?Again, the same merit-based argument holds true. The majority of five year old girls may be incapable of choosing a consensual marital relationship with another human being, but that does not mean a blanket line in the sand is appropriate. (I am deliberately ignoring the age of the groom, as it was set to that particular age just to evoke a false appeal to emotion argument. I do not intend to fall victim to the trap of groupthink taboos.)6) Or should we have some form of age restrictions? No, we should not. We should have relevant, merit-based restrictions only. In the case of the five questions above, relevant restrictions would be as follows:1 and 2 - whatever intelligence or citizen-based criteria we see fit to impose on the rest of society3 - the ability to perform military service4 - the ability to perform the relevant tasks in the factory5 - the ability to understand the implications, both emotional and legal, of a marital compact

The following are reasons why dueling should be legal:1. Consensual AgreementBoth parties that participate in a duel agree being involved in such an event[1]. Both parties involved assume responsibility for the results of their agreement. [1]. http://definitions.uslegal.com...2.No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight. Dueling is not spontaneous or an event built in with instincts of anger. Dueling requires seconds to exchange with each other the rules and location of a duel. Then they must be agreed upon by both parties[2]. Normally there will be a negotiations to stop the duel before it happens. There is more than enough time for a duel to be called off. Both parties will have had time to consider what they wish to do. The duel simply can be called off when the offending party apologizes for the offense to the offended party. [2]The Code of Honor by John Lyde Wilson3. Weapons are agreed upon. The weapons to be utilized in a duel is agreed upon by both parties. Normally, weapons utilized in a duel are pistols or swords. But weapons that will result in incapicitation or death can be avoided if the particpants wish. Participants can even duel in hot air balloons if they want[3]. [3]. http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk...4.It is a Great Event. Many great people have dueled ranging from kings,aristocrats,and nobility to professionals,politicians,and commoners. President Andrew Jackson was in multiple duels in his life[4]. A duel can be the event of a lifetime. [4]. http://hubpages.com...5.An End to Grudges. Instead of holding grudges,a duel can allow for grudges to end.6. Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)Allegedly,Mahatma Gandhi once said "An eye for eye makes the world go blind[]. "I tend to agree. That is why I say if they take your eye,you take their life. The fact of the matter is that if they can take one eye what prevents them from taking the other eye,an arm,a leg,or your life or your loved ones' lives. It requires faith in someone that had the intent to harm you to allow them another chance. If they did it once what would prevent them from doing it again? There is absolutely one person that can be trusted in this life and that is yourself because that is the only person you can control. Let us not put faith in those who have had the intent to harm us and still do. In the best or worse case scenario depending on your perspective someone can be rendered incapacitated or lifeless as a result of a duel. Your foes can become impotent. []. http://quoteinvestigator.com...7.Builds Character. The legalization of duels will prevent the slanderous from verbally abusing people they dislike in public. Now they could suffer for their sharp tongues in a duel. As a result, duels will encourage self-restraint and re-introduce honor into American culture.


Question: Should Physical Discipline be Permitted in Educational Settings?

My 99th Debate: Children and Corporal Punishment

In this debate, I will outline my case regarding the resolution: "Corporal punishment is not beneficial for the child." Before delving into my arguments, I will clarify the resolution and the burdens of proof in this discussion. The resolution suggests a preponderance of evidence should determine the winner, with the Proponent bearing the full burden of proof. This means that if the scales of argument are roughly even, the vote should go to the Con side. The resolution specifically focuses on the benefits for the child, not broader societal or parental impacts. The Proponent must defend the full scope of corporal punishment, including acts that some may consider abusive.

Argument 1: The Negative Impact of Corporal Punishment on Child Behavior

Psychologist Elizabeth T. Gershoff, PhD, conducted a meta-analysis of 88 studies over 62 years, examining the relationship between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences. Her analysis revealed strong links between corporal punishment and negative outcomes such as increased child aggression, antisocial behavior, and even physical abuse from the parent. The only positive association was with increased immediate compliance, which is not a desirable long-term outcome. Gershoff also found a strong risk that corporal punishment could escalate into physical maltreatment.

Argument 2: Corporal Punishment Does Not Teach Moral Values

Corporal punishment alone does not teach children right from wrong. It instills fear rather than understanding, and children may misbehave when parents are not present to administer punishment. This suggests that spanking sets up a loop of bad behavior, teaching children that aggressive behavior is an acceptable solution to problems.

Argument 3: Increased Aggression in Spanked Children

A study involving 2,500 children found that those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5. This study controlled for various maternal factors and natural aggression in children, yet still found a 50% greater likelihood of aggression in children who were spanked more often.

Argument 4: Long-Term Antisocial Behavior

Researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire found that corporal punishment results in more antisocial behavior in children in later years. This "boomerang" effect may not be immediately apparent to parents.

Argument 5: Reduced Gray Matter in the Prefrontal Cortex

MRI evidence shows that children subjected to harsh corporal punishment have reduced gray matter

ok i will take this up ,i will base this argument on personal exprince and not statistics , as for me i have lived through some bad domestic abuse , nothing even close to dictaorship or goverment evil , i am talking about the place were i grew up . When i was young in the city i lived in called glasgow , scotland . I was never once taught violence was bad , infact i was taught the complete opposite. Now it was not that my parents never cared for me it was for one simple reason, If i thought violence was bad and was afriad of it then , there is a very very high chance i wouldnt be here right now. Where i grew up drugs were coming into play , alchol abuse was incredibly high and teenagers were alays lookign for a fight with deadly wepaons . This may not be the glasgow the world knows , this is the glasgow i know and the people of glasgow know. Stabbings were common , deaths even more common ... i was taught violence was good to an extent , i was taught if you are violent you still stand a good chance of being invovled in violence however if you are not violent , not willing to stick up for yourself even when somebody calls you something stupid and wont apologise then you become a vicitim. Certain groups become victims i accept mainly because they let themselves become vicitims they are not prepared to do something about it. i was taught to respect violence , i leanred myself that you never start a fight . But however you will always have the last laugh. i think the old saying is right to an extent if you lived in a place like i did , " better to be feared than loved " or in my case " better to be feared , than stabbed to death " ...

"My opponent cannot deny that being on a military base or with other military personelle where there is possible access to weapons is not more dangerous for a troubled child to be in then a classroom in a school where there is not a gun allowed within 100 feet. " First off allow me to define troubled. I, and maybe others, are confusing troubled with emotional problems. Troubled - A cause or source of distress, disturbance, or difficulty. "Military schools are most appropriate for children and teenagers who do not have any underlying emotional or behavioral problems. " Yes they are within weapons most of the time but not with ammo. While on bases within the states Military Police are the only people with loaded guns, also which is considered a moderate risk. The only time these young individuals would be using a gun would be boot camp. Boot camp is meant to teach these kids the discipline they need in order to be able to handle any such responsibility they encounter including handling a gun. As to the classroom connection you are partially correct. Yes the guns are not allowed within the school limits but it does happen. Such examples as Columbine. My opponent said, "Please elaborate on how this is a more rewarding way for tax payer's money to be spent on. " A student who leaves a publicly funded educational establishment with nothing more than a diploma because the staff did not want to deal with the student is a waste of funds. Such students also who waste time of teachers and students and disturb the learning process are a waste of funds. Such students, again, hurt others ability to learn. While in the Military such students can be of use by reasonable means as ordered by their superior. The title of this debate is Eleventh and Twelfth grade should be earned. As I have mentioned in my opening argument; Questionable about their learning: Blatant disregard to fellow students and staff. Fail to do any work even when helped is offered by staff. Constantly interrupt the teachers dug lessons. Constant refusal to do anything productive within their environment. My opponent brings up a point of pacifism. Certainly a person who is pacifist will not fit in any of those problems above. He has also brought up the points of religion. According to their teachings, if followed, than those students would not fall into this category. The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military.

PRELIMINARIES To Pro: I didn't intend my language to come across as difficult or intentionally flowery/technical in any way. I hope that wasn't the impression I gave, and I'll be making an effort from now on to be as straightforward as possible. Also, no worries about the work, luckily I have the luxury of being a full time student. :-) RECAPPING MY ARGUMENTSRecall the challenge I set for Pro in the end of my last post: It's NOT ENOUGH to show that spanking has some good benefits (which it undoubtedly may have). Pro needs to show firstly that spanking is the only way to achieve the good benefits in question, and secondly Pro needs to show that spanking has no disproportionately bad side-consequences. As I have argued however, there are very strong reasons to think this is not the case!(I) Empirical evidence shows us that spanking is no more successful than other non-violent methods of discipline, such as using reward systems not to spoil children but rather to encourage disciplined behaviour. I cited two peer-reviewed empirical studies in support of this claim, Straus (2005) as well as Larzelere, Schneider, Larson and Pike (1996). Has Pro given us any reason to reject this claim? None. Pro simply asserts in reply: "NO other punishment is proved to work, where a spanking has been proven to work." But the empirical studies I cited precisely claim to prove this! So unless Pro can cast doubt on these empirical studies, his assertion is absolutely unfounded.(II) Empirical evidence shows us that spanking has wide-ranging and disproportionately damaging consequences on children. Again, I cited an empirical study, Gershoff (2002). According to Gershoff, spanking (i) increases the likelihood of decreased moral awareness and internalisation in children that carries on into adulthood; (ii) decreases the quality of the relationship between parent and child; and (iii) increased anti-social and delinquent behaviour in children. See my previous post for the reasoning I offered to connect spanking with these consequences.Again, has Pro given us any reason to reject this claim? Again, none. Pro says: "spanking a child may have a small percent change in the mental health where grounding them may teach them they can get off easy in the real world". But this is the same point Pro made earlier. He is basically saying that 'grounding' kids will teach a bad lesson, whereas spanking won't. However Pro has not considered the possibility of disciplinary methods other than grounding: for example, using a reward system as I mentioned earlier. And in any case, Pro's claim has been asserted with absolutely no evidence. As Christopher hitchens is fond of saying: "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" [1]. We must demand evidence from Pro if we want to believe his claims.(III)There seems to be no reason to think that if we allow spanking, we also shouldn't allow gradually stronger and stronger forms of violence against children. This is a 'slippery-slope' argument, but not all slippery-slope arguments are necessarily bad. (If you want evidence for this, see the Wikipedia entry on slippery slope arguments). To be honest, I don't think this third point of mine is very strong at all. But I leave it to Pro to debunk my point, if he so chooses.THE CASE AGAINST SPANKING STANDS UNREFUTEDIn conclusion, I must say that there is very strong reason for us to think that spanking is wholly unnecessary, in light of the points above. Before entering this debate I did not actually know about all the empirical evidence revealing these facts about spanking. Now that I do, my opinion is much firmer. I urge you all to go Con on this debate!REFERENCES / CITATIONS[1] This is in fact not an original saying of Hitchens', but a popular axiom of the great medieval Scholastic philosophers. *For full citations of other sources quoted in this post, cf. my previous post.

My opponent has chosen to forfeit twice. I really wanted this debate to go on. While I will not argue, I can counter some things I found while looking at my opponent sources. http://www.cyh.com... Her first source itself states everything I been trying to say. Some things to consider from the research - "While an occasional mild smack may not cause harm, the danger is the possibility of accidental injury or loss of control by the parent (a smack may lead to more smacking next time or a serious belting as the parent senses that the first smack did not work).." - "An immediate hit may stop your child's behaviour for the moment, but she probably will repeat it (she doesn't learn what to do instead, only what not to do)." - "Children learn not to do the action in an adult's persence, rather than learn not to do it at all." - "Children's feelings of anger and hurt are often so strong after being hit that they can have difficulty remembering the reasons for the punishment." - "If punishment is frightening, your child can learn ways to deceive (lying, cheating or blaming others) to avoid being hit." "Some children can become fearful, anxious, rebellious or withdrawn." "Children tend to copy what you do and may bully others." - "Physical punishment teaches children that violence is acceptable and that it's okay to use violence when you're angry, to solve problems or to get what you want." - "Most people would agree that settling conflict between adults with physical force is wrong. It is against the law to hit (assault) other people, eg. adults, partners, servants, apprentices." - "There are more effective ways of disciplining children than using physical punishment." Thank you for providing a source that clearly points out everything I been trying to tell you! It adds volume to my argument, and shows why we do not need physical punishment. Her second source itself points out something I been trying to say. http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org... "Children learn how to behave (socially and emotionally) by imitating the behaviour of those closest to them." Again you're your child's best teacher. What he sees you do, is what he's probably going to replicate. My opponent third source is contrary to what she been trying to argue: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... The source itself says: "A recent poll found 71 per cent of parents would support a ban on smacking." "'No good can come from hitting a child,' she said. 'I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked." "'The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people too.'" Thanks for providing a source that clearly paints a picture.

My argument against home-schooling is mainly with the quality of the education. There is no real set of checks and balances in place (outside of taking the SAT's) to ensure the quality of what is being taught. I had a friend that was home-schooled, not because his family was religious (the most common reason) but because they knew that was the only way he would get a high school diploma. As a nation the US has fallen far behind other developed nations in the area of education. This is a time when we should be raising the bar for education, not letting people teach their kids that the world is 6000 years old and we rode around on dinosaurs at on time. Home-schooling also limits the colleges that a student may apply and attend. Most private colleges will not accept a HS diploma that was earned at home, and for very good reason. My argument remains that until one can guarantee the quality of the education received home-schooling shouldn't be allowed.

===Acceptance=== I accept this challenge. Note that the argument was clarified in comments 1 and 2 to this more formal version: 1. Many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school. 2. In most cases, bullies are given no punishment whatsoever. 3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three. ===Disclaimer=== Before I begin this debate, I would like to make a disclaimer that I do agree with the general premise of the debate. Bullying is a regrettable aspect of the public school system and society in general and should have consequences and penalties. However, I am not debating that bullying is bad - this would be a ludicrous argument; rather, I am debating the extreme level of retaliation that my opponent is proposing against bullying and the problems with implementing this in the public school system. ===Rebuttal=== Since my opponent is the instigator arguing an affirmative change to an existing policy, rather than a hypothetical debate, he has the burden of proof. Also, since my opponent's long introduction constitutes an argument, and the first round was not specified to be acceptance only, I will proceed directly to rebuttal. This will use the numbering system established in the formalized version of the argument. Rebuttal to Statement 1. My opponent's statement that many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school is unsubstantiated and uncited. I shall proceed to give two possible counterexamples. 1: An adult who happened to be bullied in high school could be scarred for life as a result of bullying in high school, among other factors, rather than solely due to bullying in high school. Furthermore, such an adult could have never learned to develop the proper emotional defensive skills, such as standing up to opposition and bullying, and thus be scarred due to further bullying in the workplace. Note that I am not arguing possible scenario as a main point, but simply presenting a possible counterexample. 2: Because the source is uncited, I will dispute it by default. However, it is a reasonable assumption, so if presented with a source or citation for this, I will agree with this point. Rebuttal to Statement 2. Again, my opponent's statement is uncited and unverifiable. A sample size for the amount of bullying happening in school is impossible to get from a relatively unbiased source, such as teachers or administration, and prone to exaggeration and hyperbole from a biased source, such as students. Obviously, one is less likely to be bullied in front of, say, the school principal or other administrator, than when no other adults are around, making it impossible to establish an accurate sample size. Conversely, a sample taken from the student body is prone to exaggeration for multiple reasons, such as varying definitions of "bullying", reticence or shame to admit to the interviewer, etc. Rebuttal to Statement 3. While my rebuttal to my opponent's statements 1 and 2 were mostly technicalities, the main issue I take issue with (and I presume the main issue of the debate) is statement 3. I will break the third part of my opponent's resolution down into the three components established in the formalization of the argument, namely: 3.1. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be denied a free education. 3.2. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be sent to a reform school. 3.3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Rebuttal to Statement 3.1. According to Section 26 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly res. 217A (III), 10 December 1948), "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free..." [1] While bullying should by no means be condoned in school, denying people who bully the right to a free education is not the answer. Education in high school and particularly college is not only a time of academic maturation, but also social maturation. Also, bullies tend to come from homes with immature parents prone to domestic violence. Aside from having to rewrite the entire Universal Declaration of Human rights, an argument could be made that by denying bullies free education, a perpetuating cycle would ensue, as bullies would be forced out of the school system, missing a major part of maturation, growing up to be immature adults more likely to have children ending up to be bullies, just to name one possible scenario. By denying all bullies the right to education without regard to the severity of their social crimes (note that no qualifier was made; "all students who go to school for the solve purpose of degrading their peers" indicates an absolutist argument), one may perpetuate the social cycle that promotes bullying. Rebuttal to Statement 3.2. By definition, reform schools are correctional institution for the detention and discipline and training of young or first offenders. Like in prison, reform schools commonly have rape problems, as evidenced by a nine-year investigation in Ireland's reform school systems. [4] By simply casting away bullies without regard to the severity of their victimizing tendencies, one may be condemning a child to an institution far out of proportion to their crimes. Though reform schools are necessary in some case, a delimeter or qualifying process would need to be institutionalized in order to determine who to send to a reform school. Rebuttal to Statement 3.3. Many states and countries have drastically different bullying laws, as evidenced by the plethora of new anti-bullying laws constantly being instated, some quite harsh. By prosecuting ALL bullies to the fullest extent possible, one is ensuring a draconian system that does not take severity into account in penalties, similar to the scenario in the rebuttal to my opponent's statement 3.2. Furthermore, in the United States, if a student physically bullies another person, he/she can be charged with assault and battery [5] and tried as an adult if at or over 18 years of age. Due to the nature of bullying, (see Rebuttal to Statement 2) the vast majority of prosecuted statements could conceivably turn into a he-said-she-said situation, as bullying is much less likely to happen in front of authorities or a group of unbiased individuals. Since the fullest extent of, say, assault and battery can mean multiple years in prison if convicted, prosecuting all offenders to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their crimes, is an unnecessarily severe punishment more subject to abuse than proper implementation. ===References=== [1] http://www.hrea.org...; [2] http://www.education.com...; [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; [5] http://boston.cbslocal.com...;

I completely disagree. Everyone has the right to feel safe and be free from abuse. Abuse is not a right.

I affirm: Corporal Punishment is a reasonably adequate and just punishment for certain crimes. [Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. Corporal Punishment: caning or flogging. Reasonably: fair, proportionate Adequate: sufficient for the purpose Just: giving each their due [Observational Analysis] For analysis of the resolution, I pose the following observations. 1. The resolution asks for a "reasonably adequate" punishment. This is a punishment that is proportion to the crime that has been committed. Note: Proportionality is not equivalence. 2. Certain crimes. The affirmative offers the 3 following crimes that warrant Corporal Punishment while in Jail/Detainment. Crimes: Rape, Kidnapping, Attempted Terrorism. [Contentions] Contention I: Corporal Punishment is a reasonable punishment.(Proportionality) For the 3 crimes I have posted above; corporal punishment is a proportionate response. These 3 crimes do not deserve death but they are too great for jail only. Punishments must be fair and proportionate. Using corporal punishment open up an avenue for an intrum punishment. I.e. a punishment between staying in jail only, and receiving the death penalty. For a punishment to be reasonable it must be: "fair, proportionate". Corporal Punishment is indeed proportionate for crimes that do not warrant death or jail only. Corporal Punishment could be sued while the person is in jail for the given amount of years, or life. (Since we are talking about rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism). Contention II: Reducing Crime (Justice) According to the CIA country information site, the countries which have corporal punishment have significantly lower crime rates then the US. E.g. Japan and Singapore. If deterrence is indeed a factor being played, it is a good secondary outcome, that is just for the members of society. Contention III: 8th Amendment (Proportionality, Constitutionality) The 8th Amendment is based off of the ideas of Beccaria. He said the famous quote: "The punishment must fit the crime." The 8th Amendment claims no cruel and unusual punishment. Beccaria explains that this means that the punishment cannot exceed that of the crime committed. If it does, then it is an unjust punishment, and thus violates the Constitution. for reasons in contention I, the punishment is proportionate, and is thus in coherence with the constitution. Contention IV: Faulty Jail System (Justice) The jail system in the US is faulty. We have overcrowded jails which lead to lessining of sentences. This is the reality of things. however the justice system must keep justice. Using corporal punishment can be used to achieve proportionality but have reduced sentences, if necessary. That way, we would have more room to fix the system, and return it back to normal. Therefore, corporal punishment is a just way for members of society by reducing taxes and making a more efficient justice system. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

"I agree that teachers should be close to their students in order to motivate them but I can't see why they should do it privately..." Some teachers do better when they listen to their students in private. Mine talked to me in private to avoid people judging me for my beliefs. "Yes, of course there are some young teacher whose age is close to the one of some of their students, but the topic is not "Does the difference in the age affect a relationship?". We have to do with MINORS and dating minors isn't everywhere legal! Even if a parent approves such a relationship we can not allow it exist between a student and his/her teacher! A teacher must not show more interest in some of her students let alone to have a personal relationship with them. This is why teachers usually avoid teaching in their child's classroom ( I don't say that they don't in some cases this is something inevitable)." My teachers showed more interest in me and it wasn't romantic. I've had them set the standard for allowing students to pass: "work hard and i will pass you, slack off and you will fail." On top of that, i'm sure that teachers should recognize that they'd be doing their student a favor if they let him or her fail which rarely happens due to Bush's "no child left behind" act. I think teacher-student relationships can work given that there is co-operation. "Teachers don't do anything bad since what they do is legal but they are obliged to teach students that such habits are not recommended. And the teaching will not be effective if students know that the teachers do the things they tell them not to do as I have already said. Why should students know their teachers' habits? Why should we have this problem?" Exactly, why should students know about what teachers do in their personal lives and more importantly, why is he/she going out with so and so in class outside of school boundaries? Pro agrees that it is acceptable at the last part, but then disagrees?

This seems to be an argument of stories and anecdotes, so I have one that you should consider in regards to your arguments. There was a boy named Tom that my brother's friend used to babysit that came home one day with a story about his friend. It went something like this. Tom's parents were a huge fan of brainwashing, a fact that Tom was very proud of. However, it meant that when he told stories about it in school his friends would get jealous and steal things from him. One day when his friend Tim stole Tom's casserole something inside Tom broke. He grabbed a spork and stabbed at Tim, not meaning any real harm, but it cut his wrist open and he died. Tom was charged with assault and sent away to Juvenile Hall. There they took away his books and his brainwashing and left him to rot in a cell for weeks at a time. Throughout this time he was sent to counselor. She was a good woman and an even better social worker, but unfortunately (as Tom says) they never are able to reach anyone. During his stay, the warden provided a new benefit for the inmates: they were given books to read on bullying and they were shown websites about bullying. The iron shutters of the roof on the prison shook with the might of their riots as they protested this action. Then, just as the courts decided they were lost causes and sentence them to death, the Warden was struck with an idea that was so crazy, it might just work. She dove into the archives and searched for days on end until finally she found it. She took a stack of binders and slammed it upon the court's floor to draw attention above all the contesting voices. She then solemnly approached the first boy and after she got the court's attention, started to punch and kick the bully, until there was severe bruising. He went back to school in CA and was on the honor role for 3 years. One by one she went, the folders of the original records of the boy's misdemeanors in one hand and various bullying tools in the other. One boy ended up going to Harvard and another won three Pulitzer awards. Tom's is now is an astronaut-president-jedi-Bear Wrestler who secretly invented a time machine and set up the world so he could make money off of apple so is a billionaire too. As we can see from this story, counseling and giving bullies books on bullying to make them better has no effect on children at all (in fact it can cause riots of a violent nature!). However, when the bullies were exposed to what had been done to them, the results were astounding. I wish that my teacher had used this technique on me, I would also like to be a bear wrestler. I think this story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that my suggested tit for tat method is the best method for teaching bullies.