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

A completely unregulated market could harm the U.S. economy.
The proposition is that 'a completely unregulated market would harm the U.S. economy,' which means the affirmative side argues that removing all government regulations would harm the U.S. economy. If there were 100 total government interventions, and 1 of them is beneficial, while the other 99 are detrimental, removing all of them would overall help the U.S. economy. However, under the affirmative's interpretation, if this scenario were true, the statement 'a completely unregulated market would harm the U.S. economy' would be correct due to the one good intervention. But this interpretation is flawed—removing all government interventions would help the U.S. economy overall in this scenario. What the affirmative side likely meant to say is that 'not all government interventions are harmful to the U.S. economy,' or be the negative side on 'all government interventions are harmful,' or something similar. But that isn't what they said.
Patents: Lawyers do handle the legal work for pharmaceutical companies, but this just supports the argument. Pharmaceutical companies are wasting valuable resources on lawyers and lawsuits, rather than investing that money in more innovation. The Watt example was not intended to prove the point, but rather to illustrate a general point, showing how patents hinder innovation. However, if the affirmative side would like examples more relevant to their main point, consider the pharmaceutical industry: Patents lead to waste by forcing companies to reengineer a slightly different version of a drug to compete with it. About 75% of current R&D spending is on copycats of existing drugs. In addition to wasting resources that could be spent on useful things, patents prevent innovators from producing many potentially helpful drugs.
Insider Trading: Enron is not an example of insider trading—it was a case of fraud, which is entirely different. Insider trading would be if someone working at a company knew that the stock price was much higher than the company was really worth. And so they shorted the stock, expecting it to go down to what the company was worth, and made a lot of money. The argument that insider trading hurts capital accumulation, provided by the affirmative side, is based on a speech by the SEC. Obviously, the SEC thinks it’s doing a good job—this is hardly evidence. It’s absurd to think this claim has any merit. People don’t invest in the stock market because of fairness—they invest hoping to make money. They’ll invest as far as they think they’ll

Okay then. Here is where our definitions differ; I believe a crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property. You believe it to be doing anything against the law. You see, I wouldn't consider self-abusive actions to be a crime. For instance, if there's a guy sitting in his room getting high, I figure that to be his own business, just as if you're shooting up heroine or anything else. I do not believe this to be something truly deserving a prison sentence (since what they're doing is as much of a punishment as anything) unless they are hurting someone else (ex: bad influence to their children, dealing drugs, hurting neighbors, driving under the influence of a drug, etc, etc). As I said though, I most certainly agree that if a person has been infallibly proved of committing a crime like murder or rape that he or she should be punished. "alot of your argument is about how it is unjust to allow the decision to fall into the hands of the judge, the judge doesnot make the decision, the jury do." I'm aware that the judge doesn't make the decision and the jury does. That would be why I am in the affirmative position of this resolution. I'm arguing why it is just to have jury nullification, and unjust not to. Therefor, yes, a lot of my argument is based on the fact that it is unjust to leave all power to the judge, because I'm attempting to prove my point that jury nullification is just, and trying to say why lacking it is unjust. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear. "use the scenario of a murder case, the defendant has evidence against him or her and there was a witness to the crime the judge is convinced that this person is guilty but the jury nullify the case ." You give no back up for this murder scenario. Jury nullification isn't used for something like this, it's used in cases where the law itself is questioned. I suppose you could be thinking of something like the O.J. Simpson case, in which the jury ruled "not guilty", but that wasn't jury nullification, that was simply a bad jury ruling. There is a difference. A jury ruling is based more on the infallible facts of the case, like yes this man did murder his neighbor, while jury nullification is used in a case where them law is thought to be unfair by the jury like, this man didn't pay his income tax. Very different. Please give me an actual case in which jury nullification has been used to set a murderer free over and over again. "now every thing could be okay, however majority chance is that when you let this person go that they will commit crime over and over, are you just going to keep nullifying the case?" Also, do you realize that even on the off chance that a murder case was nullified, and the same man came back to the same court, that the chances of them nullifying it over and over, every time they committed the crime is absurd? A jury is made up of common, everyday people. You find me one common, everyday person who would want to set a convicted murderer or rapist free. Then find me a group of them, a big enough group to make up the majority of the jury. I can guarantee that you are going to have an exponentially hard time doing this. And to then find an equally rare group of people for each murder case that the same man is charged with, so that he may be set free time and time again. It's so highly implausible that I don't believe that it really supports your statement of jury nullification being a danger to society. "yeah the government should be kept in check but jury nullification is not the act to use to do so." Alright, if jury nullification isn't a way to keep the government in check, then what do you propose? Why is it not a way to keep the government in check, and what is a better way to do this? "if it is thepeoples job to keep the government in line then how are the people to be kept in line?" I think that I already kind of answered that question in your cross examination, but I'll answer it again. The people make local laws, and try and keep their community safe since they have to live there. No one wants to live in a dangerous, scary place, so citizens are going to try and keep each other in line simply to lead secure, comfortable lives. Through the laws they make, and this want for a safe community, the people keep the people in line, just as the people keep the government in line. I'm not certain that I fully understand the question you presented me with though.

Once again is the purpose of the legislation necessary. The answer is no. In a capitalist society, one should be able to buy products that may be considered taboo. The state hurts the nation through unnecessary intervention in the economy. It doesn't matter about the checks and balances rationality is still subjective. Please name the European countries in which your law is enacted. The constitution must be upheld because it is the law. America like Canada and Australia is governed by the rule of law and so if people have the right to bear arms which are sanctioned by law than that MUST be protected. America is still unstable so the historical context does not work. It has been amended but you have not given a good reason why it should be amended again. Also, I defended why a living tree interpretation of the constitution does not work and is invalid. The high crime rates and instability in the domestic and international geopolitical arena make the 2nd amendment relevant. If one bans guns than they must disarm the military and police as well if you are not for this. Then your motion: The USA should abolish all firearms is a flawed and not well-written motion. The geopolitical situation goes against the idea of disarmament. I give an example of how someone could seize total power in America and it is not that likely. Also if no good person is armed than the criminals from the black market will continue to attack schools and cause trouble and nobody will be able to keep peace, order and good government ruining the American dream. On the militia. How do you think every other country that has had a successful rebellion take down the government? An armed populace engaging in small attacks in order to weaken and slow down a much larger force. Why call the police? What if the police don' get there in time. What if you can't call the police. What can the police do with guns that you can't? Also once again you lean into the fantasy that in a no gun America criminals who are already breaking the law wouldn't get guns from the black market. People who are unarmed don't fight back. None of the teachers or student in Florida were armed so... Okay, so I addressed this before. However, I will reaffirm. Guns have practical uses and I gave those uses. Banning Guns would help with anything. If the issue is mental health can what not then the Government should focus its attention on that and not guns. The material is not to blame the illness of the mind and heart is. Guns also play a role in the economy just remember. If I want to shoot up a bank or a school and the Government won't sell me but I really want to commit a crime than I will find a way and the black market is the key. For Britain. Your facts are true but here is the thing. The British Government puts more efforts into mental illness fighting and what than the United States so it isn't all the gun law changes that are dealing with crime. Also, Guns aren't "abolished in the UK". So an attack could still happen just as much as in the US. Also, what is an assault rifle? My Conclusion is simple. Constitutional rights must be upheld no matter what. You have to repeal the 2nd amendment if want to end so call Gun privileges. Banning Guns do not reduce death they increase crime and lawlessness. Guns have practical uses like cars and the black market is still a problem. You have not convinced me of your 2 premises and thus I dismiss the motion in question as nonsense.

This is a continued debate which started here. . http://www.debate.org...Although this is a contentious debate, The Debate has moved into a matter between the debaters. Voter's should take into consideration each continuation separately. Please vote and comment on any considerations you have. An Opinion section has been started on this issue and is linked back to the first debate. . http://www.debate.org... As this is a follow on debate, any information from the previous round may be included in this Debate, but should not be used by voters to determine the outcome of this debate. Some predetermined points of this debate can be found in the Comment section of this debate.

The bourgeois has time, he can circumvent law. The means of enslavement must be destroyed, otherwise they will only rise again (Stalin), thus we must to protect the liberty of the individual, and yes I, a Communist, like civil liberty. You want balance, I do what I believe is right by decking the gits.

Thank you for accepting con. First let me start by saying that all the important religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) allow the rape of your enemies, meaning nonbelievers. If you rape someone of the same religion as you however, you give the father 50 shekels and they become your wife, as you have violated her. Therefore God doesn't make a big deal, and sometimes approves totally, of rape. The biggest problem in rape is sex with someone you aren't married to. You can't rape your wife, because she is your property. Then lets go on to the next point: women deserve it and secretly want it. Women have ruined the whole white world with their stupidity and feelings. I do not like the blacks, Jews, Muslims or gays. Women don't like that I don't like them so they won't allow me to enslave blacks, kill gays, drive away Jews or ban Muslims. The female race has stripped men of their masculinity. Just look at men today! Look at education. We can't even beat our children! Pedophilia, incest and bestiality are about to be as okay as homosexuality. Like I said earlier, the biggest problem in rape is the fact that you aren't married. So, we should legalize rape, and do as the Bible says: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."" Rapists marry the whores they violated. This is the will of God.

I think it will be very fun, and I find this topic to be very interesting. I have spent much time on preparing my case, and i’m sure this debate won’t disappoint! ========================================================= I must reject the proposition that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. CONTENTION 1: THE RESOLUTION INDICATES FOUR DISTINCT HUMAN ENTITIES The resolution explicitly mentions one innocent person and it mentions a separate innocent group of people. Also understood is a third person who is faced with the choice of killing the one person or the allowing the group of people to die. Finally, a fourth human element is present threatening the innocent group of people. This threat must be human because if the threat were a natural threat such as an earthquake or tornado, then there could be no certainty that the many could have been saved. Additionally, the killing of a human would not stop a natural disaster. Human sacrifice was long ago abandoned as a means of controlling nature. Thus the only conclusion is that there is a fourth agent that poses the threat to the many and the killing of the many is the responsibility of that fourth agent. CONTENTION 2: AFFIRMATIVE RESOLUTION OPERATES UNDER A FALSE ASSUMPTION A. The affirmative wants us to believe that the understood person in the resolution is responsible for both the one and the many. This is false. The understood person is only responsible for the one person he or she kills. B. Implicit in the resolution is a fourth party that is endangering the R13;many innocent. This is obvious from the fact that the understood person has the power of life and death over the many. If it were a natural disaster that threatened the many, the understood person could not be certain of saving the many. C. Since it is a separate human agent which poses the threat to the many innocent people, the responsibility for their death or salvation rest with that person who poses the threat. The understood person is only responsible for the life of the one innocent he or she would kill. Therefore, it can not be morally permissible to kill one innocent person because Affirmative can not be certain that this fourth party would actually cease the threat. The understood person could be the victim of a warped mind. Thus the resolution is false. CONTENTION 3: THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION IS THE BETTER INTERPRETATION A. Negative interpretation accounts for all parties to the actions inherent in the resolution. Affirmative disregards or fails to recognize the existence of the fourth human agent which presents the initial threat to the many innocent people. Negative recognizes this threat. B. Since Negative recognizes the existence of the fourth threatening human agent, the negative interpretation of the situation is the more logical interpretation. The understood person who affirmative asserts must make a decision is actually only responsible for his or her actions against the one innocent person. The fourth human agent is responsible for the threat to the many innocents. C. Since the understood person is responsible only for the one person, killing that one innocent person would be immoral. The deaths of the many innocents and the morality of those deaths are the responsibility of the fourth human agent. CONCLUSION The decision in this debate is clear. The responsibility of the actors in the resolution is clear. There can be no certainty that the fourth human agent will allow the many innocent people to live even if the understood person kills the one innocent person. Thus, killing the one innocent person violates the responsibility each person has to every other person – to respect their right to live. The resolution is based on a faulty warrant and so is false. ===================================================================Look forward to my opponent's arguments=)

PRO begins his third round with a positive argument, but I urge you to ignore it entirely. As I noted earlier, and as PRO has completely disregarded, new arguments are *not* allowed in the final round of debate. Nevertheless, PRO has opted to lay waste to the ethics of debate. Judges, please bear this in mind when dolling out conduct points. As I also noted in Round 2, I am not obligated, as the person without the burden of proof--and you'll note that PRO never once contested that he had the burden of proof, so it extends through that it lies solely with him--to provide a positive argument. Nevertheless, I have done so, and PRO has completely dropped it. This is even more reason to immediately vote CON. I'm going to rebut PRO's arguments, even though I'm not obligated to at this time since it's, again, illegitimate and unethical to initiate new arguments in the final round of debat. PRO states, "I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have beeninterrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off." PRO is basing his entire case on his own subjective experience. Not only is there no evidence at all that this actually took place--nor should you buy that it actually did--but this is not in the slightest a rational reason to draw a line in the sand and say "Do not do X." Life is not, and need not, be one size fits all, nor can we reason from any particular subjective experence to a general rule. PRO provides only the former and claims it as a basis for the latter, but this cannot possible obtain. Further, he ignores that he's (1) more likely to either not speak with those individuals than to have contentions relations with them; (2) he may in fact befriend them, and again is "throwing out the baby with the bath water" by also eshewing any opportunity for friendship; and (3) has several means of recourse--blocking, "stopping threads" and deleting the PM conversation, contacting a moderator, etc.--should he feel that a member is harassing them, though again we have no reason to believe that this was the case.PRO states, "Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me?"This is irrelevant to the debate. Vote CON. Thank you.

I propose that private practitioners should be prohibited from providing over-privileged panic-merchants with prophylactic prescriprions that protect posh patients from porcine pandemics. That's because although drugs like Tamiflu can prevent an individual from contracting swine flu, there aren't enough stocks of this anti-viral medicine to go round and, consequently, paranoid posh people have been purchasing this medicine from private doctors, even though they are not suffering any symptoms of the virus. (1) This costs them a small fortune but the posh know that if Tamiflu is running out, doctors would rather prescribe the drug to innocent little children rather than bloated tycoons or inbred aristocrats. You see, as far as the posh are concerned, the poor to can go to hell in a handcart - make no mistake, these over-privileged toffs and snobs don't care how many orphans die so long as they don't contract the virus themselves and have to suffer the inconvenience of a runny nose and a sore throat. Now, several governments around the world have, quite rightly, prohibited posh people from handing over huge wedges of cash in exchange for a Tamiflu precription and I contend that all governments should adopt this policy forthwith. Thank you. (1) http://www.newsweek.com...

My opponent has put forth a good argument, but it has a few flaws: "There are many instances in which a person is justified to kill a someone (prostitute) in self-defence." This is true, but also irrelevant. "Murder" involves the intentional killing of another human being for reasons other than self-defence. The premise is that it is immoral to MURDER prostitutes, and so Con must prove that murdering a prostitute is morally permissible (or at least morally ambiguous), and/or that prostitutes aren't human, and/or that killing them is never intentional. "Seriously, rape on a prostitute is okay because anyway, she is used to it. She will be more happy if you rape her." Prostitutes are not asking to be raped. They are asking for money. Politicians, on the other hand, ask for both. "They are also providing sexual diseases and danger." In countries where prostitution is both legal and regulated, the prostitutes are generally safe and clean, and get regular STD check-ups (as required by law). If anything, visiting a prostitute is safer than picking up a girl in a bar. "Sometimes, they destroy a family when a married man engages to a prostitute." Men in happy marriages don't visit prostitutes. Why would they, when they're getting plenty at home? Any man who's fvcking hookers is already dissatisfied with his marriage. "Please let us also kill prostitutes because politicians have a lot of prostitutes. They have infected the politicans as well and vice versa." It's the "vice-versa" that is the problem.

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for taking the time to accept and participate in this debate with me, thanks! I shall start the debate by saying it's important to understand both sides are not necessarily arguing from their individual point of view, but instead arguing from the Model PC Morality/Perspective (which may, or may not reflect their true thoughts) In the first round I stipulated the Model Politically Correct Morality which both myself, Pro and my opponent, Con, should adhere their individual cases to, as these are the concrete agreed terms and the fundamental basis of this debate.. The criteria of this debate states arguments need to be put forth in the Model Politically Correct Person's perspective (from this point on referred to as PCP) The question both me and Con need to ask is not do we think incestuous marriage is right personally, but would the PCP think it's right based on their proposed perspective? Well here's what we know.. We can definitively conclude the PCP is completely tolerable of those who differ from themselves, with the only exception being those who not only differ, but incur damage/hurt to society directly with their difference, but not because of a differing moral compass. So logically, if incestuous marriage doesn't damage/hurt society directly, regardless of the potential negative moral impact on those who are not PCP's, Politically correct Morality dictates incestuous individuals should be embraced as gays have been and therefore incestuous couples should have the right to marry like gays. Time for my Rebuttals,My opponent stated:"I contend that it is the people who discriminate, which is important to the context because it proves that political correctness is indeed not the new zeitgeist."The point I was making is that Political Correctness is seen as the new way the modern World conducts itself, but in actuality there are conflicts/contradictions. So the Zeitgeist is conforming to a partial sense of the term. But as you pointed out, this part "is irrelevant to the discussion since it matters not whether such an attitude is prevalent" Next I will address my opponent's argument of psychological harm, Con had this to say: [1] As University of Miami psychologists Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. The primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. Even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancyand then went on to assume the psychological ramifications presumably deduced from the extract highlighted in the above source, indicate harm. When in actuality the above extract only points out the obvious fact, which is, most people are not incestuous because of normal Biology. In the same way most people are not gay. As with an Incestuous person, being gay is a combination of Biology and Environmental Factors. this does not therefore indicate harm, but instead a difference to the norm. Completely different. The American Academy of Paediatrics stated in Paediatrics the following:"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts." I move on to counter my opponents next bone of contention, Inbred Children and the risk of retardationI agree with you, Inbred Children do have a greater risk of being retarded. But marriage and having children are two different things. Take a particular couple for example, who are not related or mentally handicapped in any way, the woman of the pair has been told by a doctor that due to her genetic make up and her partners genetic make up, together, they are at a considerably high risk of having a child that is retarded/handicapped. This couple is one of millions. One of millions who have had to come to terms with the fact, they can never morally risk having children due to this horrible reality. Do you mean to tell me, in a Politically Correct Society, all these couples, who through no fault of their own, can't conceive safely, therefore cannot even get married, even if they morally accept the implications of their circumstance and choose not to have children because of the health risks? Your logic is as follows If couple A choose to have a child, there's a high probability it will be retarded, and cause harm to societytherefore they shouldn't be allowed by law to marrybecause they could choose to have a child, which may be retarded and cause harm to society.For this logically to make sense, marriage must be a vital part of the equation, it isn't. Furthermore, your reasoning not only excludes incestuous couples from marriage, but also couples who can't conceive without risk, which is irrefutably, The complete opposite of the views of a PCP.Politically Correct Morality allowing Incestuous couples to have children is another debate and non sequitur to this debate, therefore void. Con must put forth an argument that shows Incestuous Marriage alone is directly damaging/harmful to society. He/she has failed to do so this with contention. Con, who may I remind you, is supposed to be arguing from the perspective of a PCP went onto say: "if the opponent expects the state to impose restrictions on a married couple- to permanently avoid procreation through the use of contraceptives, such a marriage is indeed worthless" (Pro Highlighted)Does Con mean to tell me marriage is worthless if a couple chooses not to have children/use contraceptives in order to avoid having children? What about couples who physically cannot have children, is their marriage to "Indeed Worthless"? This seems very narrow minded to me and indefinitely anti-PC. Con's final argument was as follows: "a constant use of contraceptives is detrimental to ones health." he used the following quote:[3] The most commonly reported side effect with continuous or extended regimen OCP dosing is breakthrough vaginal bleeding. Studies evaluating this side effect have reported its presence to varying degrees. In a large trial of continuous oral contraceptives, 396 patients (18.5%) withdrew due to bothersome uterine bleeding, making this the most common reason to withdraw from the study.A quote which in-fact reports a side effect with the Oral Contraceptive Pill. My response? What if the couple don't use the Oral Contraceptive Pill, but instead use one of the other 13 contraceptives that are commonly available? What if the couple morally abstain from sex due to religious/moral reasons, similar to some couples with high risk of having children with problems? Is there still harm? I shall keep my contention brief, as I've touched upon them whilst countering Con's contentions. There is no proven definitive link between incest and any mental disorders. "It is true that children of all ages engage in some degree of sexual interaction between themselves, as well as self – exploration. In fact, it is considered that such behavior is by Text-Enhance" href="http://www.pandys.org/articles/siblingsexualabuse.html">healthy and necessary for normal sexual and social development. As siblings are generally close in age and locational proximity, it stands to reason that the opportunity for sexual exploration between siblings is fairly high - and that, if appropriate and based on mutual curiosity, then these activities are not deemed to be harmful or distressing, either in childhood or later in adulthood (Borgis, 2002)." Sourceshttp://www.pandys.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...


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

A laissez-faire economy with no government intervention would harm the U.S. economy.
BOB: The proponent asserts that a single instance of advantageous government intervention is sufficient to meet their burden of proof. This claim is absurd. The proponent argues that "a laissez-faire economy with no government intervention would harm the U.S. economy." To substantiate this, they must demonstrate that a free market would be detrimental in general, not just in one specific case. Definition: Laissez-faire—a system of voluntary exchanges based on respect for private property rights. To the extent that there is respect for private property, there is a laissez-faire economy. [Source? As a market anarchist, I should know.] Government intervention—for the purposes of this debate, any actions of the United States federal government.

1. PatentsContrary to popular belief, intellectual property (IP) hinders innovation rather than promoting it. Patents can increase the revenue an inventor receives for a given idea, but this greater incentive does not necessarily translate into more ideas. Patents also discourage innovation by causing patent-holders to waste much of their time suing people who violate their monopoly rather than inventing. Patents also discourage innovation by restricting the ability of people to improve on existing ideas. Consider the invention of the steam engine. James Watt thought of the idea in 1768, but production didn't really start until 1775, when his monopoly was secured until 1800. Production was slow during those 25 years, and exploded afterwards, and when a superior steam engine was developed, Watt spent most of the 1790s suing its inventor. [1] Because of Watt's monopoly, innovation stalled during those years, with fuel efficiency, for example, stagnating during Watt's patent, but increasing by a factor of five by 1835. [2] This delay of innovation had serious consequences, as the industrial revolution only took off in England after Watt's patent expired and the industry could thrive. But would Watt have had the incentive to invent the steam engine if patents didn't exist? Yes. He actually made most of his money after his patent expired. He was forced to constantly innovate to keep up with the competition, and, as a result, his steam engines were recognized as the best ones and thus the best-selling.What about pharmaceuticals? Don't we need patents for those? No. Historically, the pharmaceutical industry grew much faster in countries where patents were fewer

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.

Thank you Tashjar for your argument. For those reading, his argument can be found here. (http://www.debate.org...) Con’s arguments are separated into four sections, I will address each in turn. Personal Liberty: Con brings the principle of Personal Liberty into the mix. He states that “This principle is the Harm Principle, which is what I propose. The Harm Principle proposed by John Stuart Mill states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." I accept the harm principle and will demonstrate how it supports a smoking ban. I demonstrated last round that 1 in 5 deaths in America are the result of cigarette smoking. More relevant, this stat includes “an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.” This means that roughly 1 in 50 deaths that occur in the U.S. Annually are the result of secondhand smoke. Clearly smoking has a demonstrable, harmful, deadly effect on others. Applying the harm principle then justifies a smoking ban. Harmful effects on jobs and the economy: Essentially Con argues against smoking bans by referencing the money made. Consider if you would the reality that by allowing harmful substances like tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life. Profits are made and jobs created but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke. A smoking ban would negate or at least mitigate the damage done to society in this way. I leave this contention with a few questions. What good is a job if you are not alive or healthy enough to work? What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41,000 people to be killed by others annually? What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost? Consider this contention mitigated. A ban would likely not succeed in reducing smoking Con argues that a ban provides “no guarantee” of the injustice of smoking. While this is perhaps true. No law eliminates law breakers, it does however arm the people with the ability to hold trespassers of the law accountable by law. As it is, 41,000 people a year die as the result of another’s action with no means to hold those responsible accountable. We also know that a ban would discourage and diminish the amount of people who do smoke and the harm. Consider what I provided in my opening argument. “Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.”(4th source round 2) A Ban likely does reduce smoking, and in the cases it doesn’t, allows justice to be served to those who are harming others. A rise in gangs considering the dangers of gangs, this sounds like an interesting argument from con. Though I doubt the dangers of gangs compare to the 1 in 5 who die from cigarette smoke. Perhaps con could substantiate this contention by somehow demonstrating the harm compared to the harms of smoking. Conclusion: The only argument not refuted outright at this point is the contention of the rise of gangs. Though, this argument is not fully thought out or presented. Until con presents a clear demonstration of the harms, it remains that the harm of smoking outweighs the harm of gangs. We see that a smoking ban is just.

I shall present my counterpoints to Pro's arguments. -- Pro's Arguments -- 1. Pro contends that since the elderly may be just as capable as the young (90 year olds, 7 year olds? Really? ), discriminating against them is just as unfair as discriminating on the basis of race or religion. Furthermore, he says that if age is a problem, employers can discriminate based on the poor performance entailed by it, and not the age itself. 1a. However, there are a number of problems with this. First and foremost, while in principle treatment of employees should be based on merit, it is very hard to test accurately for specific qualities employers are looking for- qualities which are often heavily influenced by age. For instance, take the job of a surgeon. In such a profession, lives hang on the ability to concentrate under pressure. Age has a direct consequence on the ability to concentrate, which deteriorates with time [1]. Since age is such a good indicator of a vital ability, it would be folly to ignore it when hiring. Age is also a good indicator of other abilities, such as energy and memory, which are vital to other professions- it simply cannot be ignored when reviewing employees for the suitability of different professions. The same, of course, is also true of professions where older candidates would be better suited- consulting, executive search etc. Finally, let me note the absurd comparison my opponent is making here. Is he really claiming that age has no more relevance to job capability than race or religion? While the race or religion of a person give no important indicators either way, age has a clear impact on candidate's suitability, so the comparison just doesn't hold up. 2. Next, my opponent points out that former employees bring lawsuits against their employers due to age discrimination. Pro brings up a local case, in which a policeman was denied promotion because of his age. 2a. I am glad my Pro points out that doing so wastes money in his concluding remarks, because I was unsure as to what Pro intended this argument to prove with this argument. But if age discrimination were illegal, which my opponent is arguing for, there would be a spout of posers who had been fired/rejected because of their unsuitability, bringing lawsuits against their companies on the claim that they had been fired because their age. This would be further exacerbated because some of them WOULD have been fired for their age- justifiably, as per my previous argument. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no compelling reasons to make age discrimination illegal. It would prevent companies making justifiable decisions based on the age of their candidates, and it would also open the door for people who had been fired/rejected for good reasons to falsely claim they had been fired due to age concerns. [1] . http://seniorliving.about.com... [2] . http://findarticles.com...

First, my opponent says that this ruling will help increase voter turnout. But keep in mind that the court case was ruled in 2010. In the last presidential election, in 2008, about 130 million people voted. But in this presidential election, there were only about 117 million voters. That argument should be dropped and is false. My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate. My opponent says that this court ruling prevents both corporations from getting the upper hand, but that is not true at all. It allows the person with the most money and the most money to spend to have the greater advantage. That was proven in this presidential election. President Barack Obama not only had 100 more million dollars than Mitt Romney, but he also spent more money than Mitt Romney. And as you can see, President Barack Obama won. My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparency. He has failed to provide a definition of what transparency means in that argument. Also, he is false in his information. Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves. My opponent refutes my first contention with the argument of USA's murder rate in comparison to UK, but the problem with that is that UK has far less people than the USA for people to murder. Also, proof that the media is misleading people. Barry Glassner says that because of the media "In the first half of the 1990's US cities spent at least $10 billion to purge asbestos from public schools, even though removing asbestos from buildings posed a greater health hazard than leaving it in place." As you can see, because of the media, people were made to believe something that would harm their kids to actually help their kids. My opponent said that I said that citizens will automatically believe anything on TV, but I never said that at all. I said that if given enough exposure, people can be made to believe things on TV. My opponent is altering the words I say to prove his point, but if I were to tell him to pull one quote from my case in which I say those exact words, then he would not be able to because I didn't say that. My opponent says that this court ruling doesn't allow corporations to donate to politicians, but fails to realize that because of this ruling, superPacs and corporations were able to donate about $50 million to President Barack Obama. He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation falls. He also says that I said the Koch Brother's donated money to Texas, but that is not true. I said that the Koch Brother's donated money to Rick Perry. As you can see, my opponent is twisting my words to prove his purpose. Proof that the Koch Brother's are doing what they are doing: http://www.dailykos.com...# Sources http://www.amnation.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Consent: “That is an illogical scenario. If they are going to kill someone close to "Person A" illegally why would they not just kill "Person A" anyways? If they kill the person close to "Person A" they are engaging in an illegal activity already. So what is the difference?” The point is that crime groups could kill legally through extortion without repercussion after a dueling law passed. There is no question it will happen, humans exploiting laws are as predictable as the sun rising. Loopholes: “Killing is already legal contrary to what my opponent thinks. People are killed in wars when we shoot them and drop bombs on their heads without warning. A war is a nefarious act where even innocents are killed without consent or any kind of written permission. Dueling is fair to both participants generally. In a duel, both sides are in agreement for the action taking place so they assume responsibility.” You are comparing apples to oranges here. War and dueling are not the same thing. The former is between nations supposedly ratified through a complex process whereas the latter is between individuals over a dispute. This system could easily be taken advantage of by someone who wished to exploit it. Why bring in unnecessary deaths if you don’t have to? That is why we have a legal system, to handle disputes between individuals without the need for violence and death. It is a superior method of handling disputes because it does not involve loss of life while rectifying the situation. “A loophole is not enough to toss dueling out. The loophole that Con has mentioned is strictly theoretical and not practical. What is the likelihood of his example? It is extremely low because duels have been legal in the past and the events that he has offered have never happened. Therefore this loophole is inconsequential.” Legalizing dueling in this era is completely theoretical as well, we have no idea how it would be adopted as our culture is vastly different than when dueling was commonplace and legal. The general morality and honor code of today is alien compared to what the norm was then. Vendettas: "Dueling does not result in vendettas often. There are little to no examples in history. Vendettas are often fights such as the Hatfields-McCoys, spontaneous and unorganized. The probability of the event Con has suggested is very unlikely." Why open the possibility of it happening? There is no need to duel as disputes can be reconciled and punishment can be administered through due process without death. My thoughts: While I respect the concept of dueling in its time by upholding an honor code to an extreme standard, it has been replaced completely by a legal system in which all manner of issues can resolved and punishments can be administered. There is no need for vigilantism as we have progressed as society and no longer require it in our society. The populace shouldn’t be able to decide who gets to fight to the death, it’s regressive in nature.

My opponent is a misinformed person but that's ok because it doesn't harm society in this level of debating. His claim amounts to a single point: >People are fully aware of the consequences of a decision before they make it. This statement although true, does not advance my opponents claim due to the fact that there are various other components that weigh on different sides of the person's desicion to start taking drugs. Consider this scenario: there is a homeless person named Scott who lives on the street. Everyday, Scott is abused and assaulted and has trouble getting food or water. He has various friends who are in the same state that he is in, but they are less than honorable. These friends introduce him to drug use. immediantly, Scott's reaction is that the drugs will not make him happier, he knows the consequences of drug use and that it will hurt him. But Scott agrees to try the drug out and is later hooked, addicted to the drug which releases copious amounts of dopamine in his brain, shutting down his euphoria receptors. Scott becomes depressed and when he cannot find a way to acquire more of the drug himself, he kills himself. Now, everything about that scenario is reflected in tens maybe hundreds of thousands of alike people, but what I want my opponent to realise, is that it completely disproves the basis of his claims. Scott was not influenced by his own reasoning as my opponent would claim he was, his normal state of mind was already impaired by: >His friends >His state of living The same situation can be applied to every drug user in the country, humans are not capable of doing things without reasoning and so any reasoning that leads a human to do something against his/her nature is unnatural. My opponents view is that we are not morally obliged to stop someone from harming themselves even though they do not want to. There is no such thing as a human who wants to harm themselves in their correct state of mind. The incorrect state of mind is like a prison, it tortures the person even though they don't want it, but they will continue living in that prison because we have neglected them. That disproves my opponents claims that people who are in the right state of mind can make the decision to harm themselves. Completely false, if they make that desicion, then obviously they are in the impaired state of mind. Allowing them to make their desicions using an impaired conscious is completely inhumane and cruel. Looking at my opponents claim that we have freedom of choice, Its pretty plain to see that he didn't properly read my post at all. He completely failed to defend it from a rebuttal that was waiting for him to arrive. Lets go through his unorganised slab of text and refute each point as it arises: 'he is assuming that every person on this earth from the richest tycoon to the poorest man follows this theory of philosophy.' What my opponent says is accurate here, although the implicit straw-man is not welcome. All creatures follow some form of the philosophy of utilitarianism as a default. in animals, instead of looking for happiness they look for survival and different ways to survive and eat. Humans are not so worried about survival as animals, so we look for a purpose, happiness. Everything ever done by humanity with reason has been done for the reasons of 'a greater good,' a 'better place,' or simply for happiness. Why do we search for things to satisfy our curiosity? Its makes us happy. Why do we kill millions of each other in wars and battles? For greed, why are we greedy? For happiness. Everything boils down to happiness eventually, drugs are no different. In fact, drugs are the closest to failed pursuits of happiness than nearly anything else. 'he judges everybody with a standard model he says that if everybody in the world was given the full information about drugs, if they knew it was going to hurt them in the long run then they would not take.' Until an exception can be found to the rule, it shall stand. My opponent is very closed minded when he sees an ordinary person deciding to take drugs for the first time. However, we need to balance the motives. If there is peer pressure shoving the individual on one side, then we need to provide information to discourage him proportionate to the level of peer pressure he or she is experiencing. This way, we can negate the disruptive influences that negatively impact someone's choice. All decisions should be able to be made by an individual without exterior negative interference. That is called freedom of choice. But where all the information comes from a single party, eg, a friend or criminal dealer, the choice has been negatively affected and cannot be called 'free.' So who is going to provide the other half of counterbalances to dispute negative influences? The government. His ending statement seeks to misinterpret my previous arguments. I said that all humans living in society have: >The duty to protect society >The duty to progress society >The duty to maintain society I was wrong to assume my opponent had a shred of common sense. Ill explain it in simple English: The duty to protect society means that all members that benefit from society are obliged to help prevent or intervene with an attack on society if it is within their power to do so. The duty to progress society means that any opportunity that will advance any aspect or capability of society is not to be turned down unless it conflicts with a person's privileges (rights). Eg. Thou shalt continue working that extra 5 minutes that will allow a discovery of the cure to cancer even if you have a sore toe. The duty to maintain society is actual a duty to not tear it apart. If you are born into the world and live of welfare for your entire life, you are a drain on society and are in the wrong. The laws of Australia that prevent drug use also prevent a complete massacre of the younger generation. We both know that adolescent children have an impaired ability to determine risk. Well known fact. Considering that making it illegal for teenagers won't stop it getting to them, I would like to challenge my opponent to propose a method in which drugs can be made legal whislt our teenagers stay safely out of its reach. I would like to raise some previous points that my opponent completely failed to address in the probably vain hope that he might see them. >there is no way to harm yourself in society that doesn't harm someone else. >Drugs destroy your duty of care to society >Would you force someone to stop doing something if they are not in their correct mindset? I would like to finish up by quoting my opponent from outside this debate, after a different argument I asked him why he still supported his claim, he said: 'I am irrational.' This wasn't a joke or anything, he said what he meant and meant what he said, so my question, which I never got to ask him, is something that is irrational worth supporting for the purposes of this debate? The resolution is negated, now lets see what else my opponent has to say...

Seeing as Pro has not specified parameters for this debate, I will do so to the best of my ability. I dictate the following: Structure and Rules: [1] There will be five rounds. - Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY. - Within round 2 both sides present opening arguments. - Round 3 presents the opportunity for rebuttals. - Round 4 is the time allotted for final arguments. - Round 5 is specified for brief rebuttals and closing statements. [2] Equitable Conduct. [3] No profanity. [4] Empirical Evidence.

Seeing as Pro forfeited last round, but does intend on coming back next round, I'll keep this round brief so as to not over-load him for his R4 post. To re-cap my last round argument; we cannot imprison Harold (the guilty twin) if it means imprisoning Stephen (the innocent twin) because by doing so, we admit that it is morally permissible to knowingly imprison an innocent just to ensure we imprison a guilty party. Doing such a thing is widely considered to be absolutely out of the question, whether it be by the U.S. constitution, the Magna Carta, or Blackstone's Formulation (It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer) [1]. The later of the three being especially influential in our legal systems "This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century.It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century." [2]The Americans bumped up this formulation 10 fold, as seen by the most quoted version of this formulation given by Benjamin Franklin "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." [3].The core of my opponent's argument in his opening round was that we ought to lock up both of them for the safety of society. This method ensures society's safety, but also involves nullifying Stephen's right to due process, and so it is both illegal and immoral in Western democracies, and therefore not a viable option. As such, we must set them both free -- however this doesn't mean we have to put society at risk. The twins can be placed under police surveillance and Harold can be subject to routine check-ups with a psychologist to ensure he doesn't go on any more murderous rampages. Granted, this method does slightly Stephen, but it inconveniences him less than having an unchecked murderer fused to his hip, so it's the most rational option to take.In conclusion, imprisoning Stephen would be unethical, illegal, and unnecessary. The Western notion of justice hinges upon the idea that the government can't knowingly imprison an innocent to accomplish its goals. Furthermore, society's safety can be secured without needlessly breaking these laws. As such, the resolution is negated.Vote Con 1.http://tinyurl.com...2.http://tinyurl.com...3.http://quotationsbook.com...

PRO begins his third round with a positive argument, but I urge you to ignore it entirely. As I noted earlier, and as PRO has completely disregarded, new arguments are *not* allowed in the final round of debate. Nevertheless, PRO has opted to lay waste to the ethics of debate. Judges, please bear this in mind when dolling out conduct points. As I also noted in Round 2, I am not obligated, as the person without the burden of proof--and you'll note that PRO never once contested that he had the burden of proof, so it extends through that it lies solely with him--to provide a positive argument. Nevertheless, I have done so, and PRO has completely dropped it. This is even more reason to immediately vote CON. I'm going to rebut PRO's arguments, even though I'm not obligated to at this time since it's, again, illegitimate and unethical to initiate new arguments in the final round of debat. PRO states, "I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have beeninterrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off." PRO is basing his entire case on his own subjective experience. Not only is there no evidence at all that this actually took place--nor should you buy that it actually did--but this is not in the slightest a rational reason to draw a line in the sand and say "Do not do X." Life is not, and need not, be one size fits all, nor can we reason from any particular subjective experence to a general rule. PRO provides only the former and claims it as a basis for the latter, but this cannot possible obtain. Further, he ignores that he's (1) more likely to either not speak with those individuals than to have contentions relations with them; (2) he may in fact befriend them, and again is "throwing out the baby with the bath water" by also eshewing any opportunity for friendship; and (3) has several means of recourse--blocking, "stopping threads" and deleting the PM conversation, contacting a moderator, etc.--should he feel that a member is harassing them, though again we have no reason to believe that this was the case.PRO states, "Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me?"This is irrelevant to the debate. Vote CON. Thank you.

Thanks for your patience sir. I will retort honestly, as that is my manner. I had a root canal today, no painkillers accepted by me although the prescription was ready ahead of time, I like life, and it is a pain by nature. So be it. I agree that "no law", or anarchy as another term, is a horrible idea. We, humans, as a race or species have not evolved far enough for that. We still have a large amount of just plain killers, at all levels of society, mostly at the top, but thoroghly distributed through all ranks. To further define this-They are the same thing in this nation. A nation of law that does not respect it's own laws can never be considered a free nation. My quote means that when we let people jump our borders illegally, and with no punishment for breaking the law, at the blessing of the regime, how is anyone free here? there are so many laws, I bet almost everyone that lives free breaks some every day. We are all criminals, mostly, except maybe nuns. Speed limits? whats that? No food scraps allowed in the trash? huh? I welcome your debate and wish I had the fortitude to continue, however it is difficult to have a dispute with someone you admire. Carry on soldier, I respect you. Thanks.


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

A market without any government oversight would harm the U.S. economy.

The central issue is "a market without any government oversight..." To win the argument, I only need to show that not all government intervention is detrimental. If I can identify a single instance of beneficial government intervention, then I can prove that not all government intervention is negative. Let's consider patents: My opponent claims that patent laws cause inventors to waste time on lawsuits. However, this is not entirely accurate. In the modern era, it's the lawyers who handle the legal battles, not the inventors, particularly when working for a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company. My opponent also argues that the history of Watt's steam engine disproves the value of patents. However, my focus is on pharmaceuticals, not machinery. The peculiar circumstances surrounding a single invention during the Industrial Revolution are not a sufficient test case for the entire intellectual property system.

My opponent claims that pharmaceutical companies don't need patents, but the patent system in the U.S. is a primary reason for the substantial capital invested in the pharmaceutical industry. As experts have noted, suppressing pharmaceutical patents would result in long-term losses due to reduced availability of new medicines. Patents are crucial incentives for innovation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors.

Regarding insider trading, my opponent argues that it's a way to make money. However, the stock market is not solely about making money; it's a mechanism for companies to raise capital to continue or expand their operations. If insider trading hinders this ability, it's detrimental to the economy. My opponent also asserts that stock prices reflect the health of the company. However, this is not always the case. If the CEO knows the company is insolvent but is concealing this information (as in the Enron case and others), they can manipulate the stock price for personal gain. When the truth is eventually uncovered, the stock price will drop, but not before the CEO has profited significantly. This kind of behavior erodes confidence in the stock market, and if it becomes common, there will be insufficient confidence to maintain a functional stock market, leading to a scarcity of capital and economic decline.

Even if one argues that trading on insider information helps to reflect a more accurate stock price, this becomes irrelevant when the individuals with insider information can manipulate the stock price to their advantage. It has been noted that the U.S. markets are successful because they enjoy high levels of confidence. Investors put their capital at risk because they trust the market's fairness and the enforcement of laws against insider trading. In

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.

You do not think we can trust anyone? Not even our parents, siblings or significant others? I do not lock the door to my house or room, in fact the people I live with all leave their information out. We have pins and passwords because we enjoy our privacy, and yes unfortunately that privacy may be nonexistent. Of course it can be easily said that we must not trust anyone, but in actuality, we HAVE to. In order for society to progress, there has to be some trust. I am not saying America is completely innocent and that our country is one hundred percent morally right in everything we do. Sociopaths may be the way they are for a certain reason, but what if they love killing, even though it is wrong and were taught it was wrong. If you don't know any better, then there must be some way to teach them the right way. Just because something is right in one culture does no deem it right throughout the world. The United States is not the only country that dictates certain things right or wrong, there are many countries throughout the world that believe the same things. This leads me into speaking about morals that are universal. We cannot solely accept one societies views on a morally wrong act because that is the way they were raised of because they do not know any better, that would be ignorant of us to do that. If we are capable of showing them a better way of living, why would we hold ourselves back from teaching them that. Sure, why can't there be a group of individuals who spread a message and change the world? It has been attempted in the past. MLK fought for civil rights, Abe Lincoln fought for the freedom of slaves. If those things would not have happened, we would be living in a society where progression is impossible. If there is progression in societies, that means that morality is not relative.

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.

I find ridiculously funny, that you would call my statement "farcical" Yet a few sentences later you use the exact same situation only slightly altered to prove a theory that would in effect have the same results. I also find it funny that you think, just because someone has taken an oath that they would never break the rules. We are all human, and we all have emotions, and if they were built up enough and stored for long enough, eventually some people just snap, and the rules and guidelines that society has set out for everyone to follow suddenly don't seem to matter to the person anymore. Since the emotions have taken over mostly everything is done on impulse and not thought through thoroughly, much like your 1st paragraph. My impression is that you would not let an African American operate on you because you think they would victimize you because you are white. Is this true? And if so, what is your reasoning behind it? Personally, my reasoning behind it is just living life. I'm not saying I am racist but I cant stop what has been "programmed" in me for my entire life. I go through my life born in 1985 im not old but im not a child either, watching tv, seeing African American athletes, actors and the list goes on and on, they are very successfull and i congratulate them on that. However, when is the last time you seen an African American scientist discover something? or invent anything. Im not saying they have done nothing. What im saying is from my personal perspective they havn't done enough to proove themselves worthy of positions with such a high level of skill is required and intellect. I know you will throw barack Obama back in to the ring. So let me point out some of his flaws that i've noticed. He's only articulate when he has a speech prepared, when he's in a regular town hall meeting, he stumbles and studders practically ever sentence. Clearly there is something to that. Unless you want to simply put a blanket over your eyes and completely ignore it just to satisfy the fact that you can claim you are 100% unprejudiced. However I wont press you to prove if you are or aren't. Just the simple fact that there is a lot left for them to do, in my view before i trust them enough to put their hands inside my head. Not to mention every company not only in America, but Canada and Europe, people are hired based on their race. Not to discriminate them, but to hire minorities to even out the playing field. If you want me to provide facts, I will later on. For now let me use an example. ( A company has to hire a new employee for their marketing team and there are 3 candidates for the position. Candidate 1 is white he went to a great college and has a perfect work record and is easily the top candidate for this position. Candidate 2 Has the same skills as candidate 1 except he went to different schools specializing in a different area, so if candidate 1 didn't work out they would most likely go with candidate 2, by the way candidate 2 is from Germany. Now here comes candidate 3, African American intelligent great appearance for the marketing section of their company. However he went to a lower standard community college with sub par grades. However because he is black he was given the position. Now i don't know about you, but i would rather the other 2 candidates fill that position because they are actually more qualified to be there. Yet because of strict laws against discrimination the African American was given the job on a shiny, polished silver platter. Same can be said for higher level positions a brain surgeon. You can argue that they wont get a position like a brain surgeon unless they have the actual experience, so there is on choosing a brain surgeon just based on race or because they have to based on strict discriminatory laws. Here is my argument towards that, again i use the discrimination example but for schools. African American students are known to have lower iq's on average and its been shown i can also provide those facts for you. Because he is African American and because of the strict laws against discrimination his teacher wasn't as strict on him. He was able to graduate with a high level of education, but this discrimination has totally void any validity he may have ( in my view) in being in that position in the 1st place. I would rather the dr. who earned his way there rather than the African American who was handed that position just so he wouldnt file a lawsuit for descrimination.

Con's opening argument is that killing the man on the beach is immoral "because if you gain nothing from killing someone, and that person loses everything, it is a net loss. Objectively, a net loss is bad. Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself, and certainly not ones that not only present no self-gain but also present the loss of a life. " I reject Con's argument for several reasons. First, Con has provided no evidence that "Objectively, a net loss is bad. " Due to the lack of evidence, this is just Con's opinion that Con expects the reader to accept as correct simply because Con wrote it. Why is a net loss bad? As far as I can tell, the only objective statement that one can make about a net loss is that it is a net loss. Once one attaches a label, such as good or bad, it becomes a subjective statement that is not independent of individual thought and does not have reality independent of the mind. It may be Con's opinion that a net loss is bad and it may be someone else's opinion that a net loss is not bad, but it is just opinion not an objective statement. Since "a net loss is bad" is the premise on which Con determines morality, Con needs to provide evidence that the premise is objective and not just opinion. Second, Con's next statement, "Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself" suffers from the same failings as Con's previous statement. Con has provided no evidence for this statement therefore it is just opinion and not an objective statement. Third, even if Con can objectively show that a net loss is bad or that actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself, Con needs to demonstrate that whatever definitions Con is using for terms like "net loss" and "benefit" are objective and not subjective. For example, if John Doe enjoys killing people, deriving gratification from the act of taking a life, then the action of killing people would be a "benefit" and not a "net loss" to John Doe so, according to Con's logic, John Doe's actions would be moral. Of course, John Doe's actions would not be moral if Con's use of the word "benefit" means something different, but without an objective definition we have no way of knowing. Con goes on and makes this statement: "However, I must point out that killing someone who does not present and actual danger to you that is equivalent to murder is irrational and unjust. " Much like the earlier statements made by Con there has been no evidence presented that demonstrates that this statement is anything other than Con's opinion. The only objective statement you can make about one man killing another man, on the beach or in general, is that one man killed another man. Once you attach a label, like murder or irrational or unjust, to the act you move from objective to subjective. Con even demonstrates as much by stating that killing someone is moral if "you believe he presents a lethal threat to your well being" or it is moral if "killing someone is your only means of surviving". Depending on the label that Con chooses to attach to the act of killing a man, murder, self-defense, etc. , killing a man becomes either moral or immoral. So that raises the question of how do you determine which label to attach and how do you know that the label you attach is the correct label? As I pointed out in an earlier debate, one man's murder is another man's self-defense is another man's patriotic duty so how does one know the difference? Given the lack of any evidence presented, it appears the determination of morality is not objective rather it is just opinion. Con continues with, "A human life is regarded as self-owned" and "However, we can agree (hopefully) that man does not live for the sake of his neighbor. It seems you must support that ideal. " Once again I must point out that Con has offered no evidence to support either of these statements. I could just as easily state, "A human life is not regarded as self-owned" and "However, we can agree (hopefully) that man does live for the sake of his neighbor. It seems you must support that ideal" and my statements would carry as much weight as Con's statements because I have presented no supporting evidence. Con needs to objectively demonstrate that human life is regarded as self-owned and that man does not live for the sake of his neighbor for these statements to be considered anything other than opinion. Con's next statement: "Without this idea, the human race could never grow and innovate as quick as it has (or at all). Instead, we would act like animals, killing each other for territory and access to limited natural resources; instead, we have accepted the previous idea of morality, and thus have engaged in civilized competition for the positive creation of wealth and the efficient exploitation of natural resources" appears to show Con's ignorance of human history and the many wars that have been fought and are still being fought and the many people that have been and are still being slaughtered in the quest to secure territory and limited natural resources (I will not waste space citing references for such a vast amount of information since a Google search can provide you with the information). If it is Con's argument that objective morality exists because human life is of the most importance and because of this ideal humans do not kill each other for territory and access to limited natural resources, then it is Pro's position that the argument collapses not only because it is an unsupported opinion but because the evidence provided by human history demonstrates otherwise. Con ends with, "I hope you can present an argument that explains why you think it is alright to murder another human being, and why you think it is a net gain for you, your friends, or anybody at all. " To be clear, it has never been Pro's position that it is alright to murder another human being and I will not be providing any arguments along those lines. If it is Con's interpretation that this debate is about why it is alright or not alright to murder another human being, then that is Con's interpretation of this debate but it is Pro's position that there is no objective basis for morality and the scenario of killing a man is used to provide ease and clarity. Additionally, Con's use of the term "murder", as explained earlier, moves the discussion from the objective to the subjective and does nothing to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality. Con's arguments thus far has been to state opinions, expect the reader to accept those opinions as true and correct without any supporting evidence, then to determine that the act of killing the man on the beach was immoral based on Con's unsupported opinions and declare that there is an objective basis for morality. Since opinions are not independent of individual thought nor do they have reality independent of the mind, Con has failed to demonstrate that there is an objective basis for morality and it is still Pro's position that there is not an objective basis for morality; that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source.

Thanks for your patience sir. I will retort honestly, as that is my manner. I had a root canal today, no painkillers accepted by me although the prescription was ready ahead of time, I like life, and it is a pain by nature. So be it. I agree that "no law", or anarchy as another term, is a horrible idea. We, humans, as a race or species have not evolved far enough for that. We still have a large amount of just plain killers, at all levels of society, mostly at the top, but thoroghly distributed through all ranks. To further define this-They are the same thing in this nation. A nation of law that does not respect it's own laws can never be considered a free nation. My quote means that when we let people jump our borders illegally, and with no punishment for breaking the law, at the blessing of the regime, how is anyone free here? there are so many laws, I bet almost everyone that lives free breaks some every day. We are all criminals, mostly, except maybe nuns. Speed limits? whats that? No food scraps allowed in the trash? huh? I welcome your debate and wish I had the fortitude to continue, however it is difficult to have a dispute with someone you admire. Carry on soldier, I respect you. Thanks.

This is a topic in which I am very eager to debate, as I stand in firm negation of the topic. since the first round is only for acceptance, I will not make any arguments; however I would like to question my opponent's rule number 2. I feel that this rule should be amended to state "Please refrain from making intentionally insulting comments that may hurt the feelings of the opponent or someone in the audience" I say this because neither I nor my opponent can know what will be deemed a insulting, or what would hurt the feelings of either each other, or the audience. We can however use our own common sense and know not to make blatantly offensive remarks. Also, I accept my opponent's definitions.

I agree with my opponents observation that says that the jury should judge the law and the facts. However, according to the definition I have provided from the U. S. Dictionary of Law, a jury who nullifies, takes into consideration the judge's comments, the crime commited, the set punishment for the crime, and the intention of the crime. The law. The facts. Now, my definition says they take this into consideration to reach their final verdict. The final verdict will NOT always be "charges dropped" According to Jurisdictionary: "if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. " If they drop charges the first time, if the crime is continually committed, the jury bases their verdicts off of the repeated attempts to prosecute, and the suspect WILL be punished. So! ! As I've said before. NO it's not very harmful if the jury bases their verdict off of their moral obligations and beliefs, as well as the law and facts, then it's likely they'll come to a reasonable verdict. Let me remind you, the resolution doesn't ask me to prove that nullification is GOOD, but instead, to prove that it is justified, which I have proven it to be.

I value a persons natural and human rights. The social contract according to John Locke and Robert Grant states that all people have inalienable human rights. John Locke theorized that all people have inalienable rights which cannot be changed. Robert Grant came to the exact same conclusion a couple hundred years later ("these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged"). These "social contracts" hold that a persons natural rights are inalienable and can never be taken away in any circumstance. I must object to my opponents definition of human rights as negotiable benefits. If it is a benefit and is negotiable how is it a right? It is not. This is the definition of a privilege. A right is something which can not be negotiated. A right is concrete. Therefore, a more fitting definition of human rights is as follows: "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Inalienable fundamental are the rights stated by the United Nations especially the ones of Article 3. (http://www.un.org...) Contention 1: Everybody has the basic right to live; no matter their actions. In 1948, the United Nations wrote a document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3, of this document, is as follows, "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." These rights are universal, limitless and applied to everybody, whether the person is murderer or the victim. Or even a wife beater, or the wife. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." There is no compromising in this regard. So here is question presented, is it morally permissible for one person to take away an inalienable right of another person? No it is not. Furthermore, Robert Grant asserts that, "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." So even Pros own source supports my claim, no person can morally take away another person's inalienable rights which includes the right to life. You cannot take away a person's right to live. Contention 2: The government is the protector of natural rights not individuals. According to Robert Grant, a person is "entitled to the enforcement of these rights by the government against offending members of that society." What Mr. Grant says here is clear, a society's government is the protector of natural rights. Not individuals. This is why there are laws within society. Therefore, it cannot be morally permissible to kill in any circumstance. Contention 3: Using violence to stop violence logically does not make sense. This entire resolution is based upon using violence to solve violence. This resolution uses the single thing which it wants to prevent to try and prevent what it wants to prevent. This is circular reasoning and therefore is null and void. All morale law must abide to the laws of logic. If logically the resolution is null, then morally it must be null to. Crossex: 1) Are wife beaters people? If you answer yes to this question, then they have the right to life and therefore, it is morally unacceptable to kill them. If you answer no, then what other species are they? 2) Does the social contract protect peoples' rights? If yes, then how can you logically argue that a persons basic rights can be taken away? If no, then your entire argument is invalid because it is based upon the social contract protecting one persons rights but, not another. 3) Is the world just? If yes, then why are there people in parts of the world struggling to survive, do they not get what is due to them? If no, then you cannot value justice because there is no justice in the world. 4) Your subpoint B states that "battered women are constantly waiting for the next attack" if they are constantly waiting for the next attack how does killing a person change this reality it's still part of their permanent psyche, as explained by Dehart? 5) What psychological/physiological problems arise from killing a person and how would this affect someone throughout their life? 6) How is subpoint A even relevant? Explaining that not killing a person only incites greater anger does not make it morally permissible to kill a person. 7) If rights can be taken away, as explained in your first contention, how are they rights? 8) If you value justice how is killing a man equal to assault? Under your logic, shouldn't a wife beater be beaten not killed? 9) If I attack another person does that mark me for death because I violated the "social contract"? 10) Can you provide an exact plan of how a women should kill their husband? 11) You cited Robert Grant several times, and in specific his Humanist article (or book) in 2000, and in this Robert Grant asserts that "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." How can you utilize Grant's logic and then state that for some people these rights can be taken away? 12) Do members of society have a moral obligation to kill a killer? If yes, then how can the Catholic Church morally oppose the death penalty?