Question: Should Brawling be Permitted in Ice Hockey?

Should fighting have a place in hockey?
The inclusion of fighting in hockey, and in sports more broadly, should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Even though fighting has been a long-standing tradition in hockey and is often a key reason for fans' interest, it should not be condoned in the future. Prioritizing player safety should be the primary concern in sports, and permitting fighting in hockey demonstrates a clear indifference to such safety. Hockey leagues do not require players to serve as each other's disciplinarians and enforcers; that is the role of referees and league-imposed penalties. Basketball, a similarly physical sport, is managed well by the NBA, which effectively enforces fines and penalties to curb excessive aggression on the court. These financial penalties, game suspensions, and other reprimands hold players responsible without necessitating player-led enforcement. Hockey is one of the few sports that condones the existence of players whose sole purpose is to shield the team's star athletes from physical altercations - a clear indication that the sport must reassess its stance on violence. Unsportsmanlike conduct will inevitably occur in sports, but it is more effective to address such actions through tangible consequences that impact a player's participation and earnings, rather than by isolating them in a penalty box for a brief period.

Woman can play football I think not just almost naked I mean just like men an should not be judged but u know. Like the NFL an stuff like that like genders should play together cause we are all equal man or women bot when it comes to wrestling no cause that's ok nevermind bout wrestling guys could really get hurt but ya I think genders should play professionally together

I am arguing the contrary position. Your argument is that there should be restrictions. My argument is that there should not be restrictions. Do you forfeit?

That is cruel and unusual punishment. Someone could get killed or injured. I have no problem with making them work, But a fight club is out of the question.

Given the fact that hockey and football are two different sports, there are still core factors involved in being an "athletic" sports player in order to before at the highest level of any given sport. So, to stay that these are two have nothing to do with each other is correct in one sense, but also incorrect in the other. Such skills such as stamina, endurance, and strength are all key factors to athleticism that all sports players need, regardless of which sports they play. In both hockey and football, endurance and stamina are two very important skills, however, I believe that there is more endurance and stamina needed in hockey then there is in football. For example, in football there is a stoppage of play almost every few seconds after the ball is hiked. During this stoppage of play, players have more time to rest and regain their strength. In hockey, play is constant (unless stopped by the whistle, which indubitably never happens unless a penalty is called). Being that play is constant in hockey, I therefore believe that you need to have better endurance in hockey then you do in football. Also, with the more endurance needed for hockey, stamina is also needed. Stamina is the energy that you have over the entire course of the game which allows you to keep playing. You need a lot of stamina in order to keep playing at a constant rate. You do not need as much stamina for football because play is stopped almost constantly.

Those in the army/police forces should be the only ones to bare arms, thus this would GREATLY reduce shootings. Thus, there should be a strict procedure to ensure that illegal guns do not get in the country, this could be easily done by putting forward harsh fines/jail sentences for those caught importing or caught using illegal guns and also by checking parcels in customs (I can see the flaw in this one because it could reduce privacy). However, this also implies that hunting would have to be illegal which is quite controversial with a low of people. Moreover, this is not a bizarre idea, a lot of countries have strict gun laws. For example, the UK had a school shooting in the 1990s, only one, because after that, they made it illegal for citizens to bare arms. Furthermore, my position is that strict gun laws will greatly reduce shootings, however I am aware that people still have means to get arms and therefore shootings will never get eliminated because we don't live in a perfect world.

The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

Before I begin, I (once again) ask for evidence to support your claims. They mean nothing without proper backing either by scientists, data, acclaimed websites, books, etc. Therefore they are dismissible before we even begin. I will refute your argument in two parts. One; the "nature and nurture" part and two; identifying the "dominant male for breeding purposes" as well as your arguments regarding evolution. Fist, nature and nurture. From what I understand, you are claiming a women's primary role is to nurture the offspring to ensure survival of the species. Although you say this is "the way nature made us", I see no evidence, scientific or otherwise, supporting it. And while I agree that perhaps several thousand years ago, this may have been a mutually beneficial partnership for all sides involved, it is now not only unnecessary, but (like I mentioned in my previous arguments) a grossly chauvinistic viewpoint to take. In our modern society today, there is no reason whatsoever to prevent women from partaking in competitive sports. We live in a word of scientific advancement, extraordinary education, and longer lifespans than ever before. [1] To assume that because thousands of years ago women played a submissive role in our species that they should continue playing said role is both unrealistic and insulting. Next, why don't we move onto your arguments involving evolution. To put it simply, they are irrational at best. Claiming that it goes "against evolution to watch female 'athletes' battering each other" is absurd. The theory of evolution (which, I am assuming we both agree upon) states that natural selection ensures the fittest and best species to survive and prosper due to both external (environment, predators, etc.) and internal (mutations, genetics) factors. I am unsure exactly what you're claiming in this argument. Please provide both clarification and evidence. You further your claim by stating men are the dominant species. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) While I agree they may have the body structure better suited to physical labor, this doesn't prove their dominance. And then you speak of "breeding purposes". Not to be rude, but I'm pretty sure you need a reality check. We live in the 21st century. We have landed on the moon. We can literally learn anything, ANYTHING we want to with a few clicks or a mouse. Breeding purposes really don't apply here. Not only is athleticism becoming less and less of a factor when looking for a "mate", but with the amount of children currently in adoption centers or on the streets, we really don't need any more "breeding." To sum up: Neither the nurturing argument nor the evolution argument holds any water without proper evidence. Even if they did have evidence, they are both illogical and unrealistic. From a moral and logical standpoint, it is clear that sports are for women. [1] http://www.ssa.gov...

Number one the average weight thing is useless because in hockey there is more acceleration and less mass. You said you self there is less friction on ice so when skating at high speed's in the intent of hinting that person they are basically a speeding torpedo. I should have said this before in Football you get tackled in OPEN field but in hockey your pined between two hard places.Yes Hockey players have less fan's but more crazy fan's https://video.search.yahoo.com... in Vancouver so you have that presser on you and this goes for all team's. You also said that Football player's have less privacy well really for both sport's it's about the same it's really about the most famous player's. Finally this is how hard to get into the NHL. Out of 30,000 kid's in Ontario Canada are selected and studied 48 get drafted, out of that 48 only 39 end up signing a contracted. Out of that 39 only 32 actually play in the NHL and only 15 play more then one season. But out of that 15 only 6 play 400 games which is the amount of games to by able to play that NHL position.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Okay, let's begin. I will be dissecting my opponents arguments. Opponent: "You give some good points, but the fact of the matter is, there is a difference between simple teasing and bullying." My response: I understand the difference between teasing and bullying. I have be pushed around too. However, I feel bullying should be allowed because it teaches kids how to handle it. Personal Anecdote: Not only I have been bullied, I have also witnessed it. In all the cases where I personally knew the person, they were not affected by the events. These are all people I talk to, and are friends with now. Rather than be traumatized, they have LEARNED from the experience. As I said about myself, I can say about others: We have gained more confidence and endurance as a result of our past experiences. Opponent: "This means that if you are "different" then someone else, or don't meet the criteria others assume you must, it's OK to be bashed for it. I'm considered weak, does this mean that it's OK for someone to bully me?" Misconception: I did not say that people SHOULD bully others. I just said that is should be allowed. People shouldn't drink, but it's allowed. Understand the difference? Also, everyone is different. They exploit your differences because they have their own as well. Rather than dwell on what they say and do to you, think to yourself: "What are they hiding?" It will help you understand why they do what they do, and what they are insecure about them-self. Opponent: "Now, what about the bullies? By bullying, they are putting themselves at risk as well. About 87 percent of students say school shootings are motivated by the desire to get back at those who have hurt them." My response: Of course. Bullies are not smart people. They feed off the "weaknesses" of others. But that statement is almost trying to help bullies. If they want to be stupid enough to bother unstable and insecure people, they may have to face the consequences and retaliation. {-Do not misconstrue that statement! For everyone: Violence is never the answer. Hurting others or yourself will never solve the problem. Death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. If you are bullied, learn how to handle it, rather than react wrongly-} Perspective (Cont.) Bullies have a simple job. Bully others who are different. This statement may be taken wrongly: If we make bullying illegal and unaccepted, many kids will lose their source of happiness. Wait, here me out. Bullies, almost all the time, are insecure of themselves or problems in their life. By making bullying illegal, we are taking away a way they deal with their problems. Thus, if they couldn't be bullies, how would they otherwise vent out their anger. They could possible turn to violence.... With regards to the Columbine Story and the resolution at hand, how one reacts to bullying is very important. The side I argue for is the logical side: To simply stand up to it, and not let them hurt you emotionally. There are obviously cases of violence being spawned by bullying, but there are psychos in any situation who would resort to violence. You even said it in your own response: "A distraught Klebold was easily manipulated by Harris." It wasn't only Klebold's fault, because he was coerced into doing it, and Harris preyed on his weakness. Almost like bullies do.... That could even be compared to Hitler. The German soldiers were not inherently violent people, but were egged on by a smooth-talking dictator, Hitler. The point I'm trying to make, is that how people react to bullying is so important. The way I did, the way I saw others do, is the way that everyone should. Simply learn from the experience, stand up to them, and not let them tear down your walls. If students reacted in a better manor to bullying, rather than resorting to violence, leaving school, etc, I don't see a problem with bullying going on, as long as the student knows how to handle it. This is why, rather than have talks in school about why bullying is wrong and kids shouldn't do it, there should be talks in school about how to HANDLE the bullies. The seminars should teach kids how to stand up to them, and how to make them stop. If kids were taught how to react, and how to grow from their experiences, bullying would not be a problem, but rather an effective way for kids to learn and understand how the world works, a world that isn't always perfect.

In case anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about, check out the Wikipedia page on vuvuzelas here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyone watching a World Cup match could easily be mistaken for thinking that the crowd was made up of a swarm of bees, not humans. For people watching the game at home, this underlying buzz is simply annoying and distracting. For people watching the game in the stadium, it drowns out most of the variety of the chants, cheers and boos that make a football game entertaining. But for the players themselves, it is even worse. Not only is it distracting for them when playing the game, it also makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to hear each other out on the pitch - the goalkeeper can't communicate with his defenders, and strikers and midfielders can't communicate with each other, both of which are necessary for a team to co-ordinate well in a game - and also, there are reports of the vuvuzela sound starting early in the day, meaning that players can't get enough sleep before they play, which would make them restless and not able to play as well as they otherwise could do. [1] If this only affects one team, then the other team get an unfair advantage. But even if it affects both teams, then it lowers the quality of the game nonetheless, meaning that the World Cup has been lessened in quality overall by the choice of South Africa as a host nation. Banning the vuvuzela would also, in this way, also serve to endear South Africa to the world of sport. Their bad choice of allowing the vuvuzela to be played has lessened their popularity, and makes it far less likely - given the protests by footballers [1], fans [2] and broadcasters [3] alike - that they will ever be approached to host a similar competition again. It is actually, therefore, in their best interests to ban the vuvuzela. If it is a South African tradition, then that's fine for them. Let them play this ungodly sound at their own national tournaments. If they don't like the sound of the fans chanting and cheering for their team, then they don't have to. But this is an international tournament, with the matches being televised across the world. For the World Cup at least, it should be banned. I await my opponent's response. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.banvuvuzela.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com... See the embedded YouTube video. Although this is from when South Africa hosted the Confederations Cup last year, it is the same offending item under discussion, and the same country to blame.


Question: Should Brawling be Permitted in Ice Hockey?

Should the NHL Allow Brawls in Hockey Matches?
The tradition of fighting in hockey has been an integral part of the sport since the inception of the NHL in 1917, and it remains a crucial aspect of the game. The practice of brawling in NHL matches should be safeguarded because it serves as a means of enforcing discipline among players. With 12 players on the ice at any given time and only three officials to oversee them, players often get away with illegal and dangerous tackles. In the absence of consistent regulation, the physical altercations in hockey enable players to hold each other accountable. The awareness that a foul play or a cheap shot could lead to retaliation serves as a potent deterrent against players engaging in potentially harmful activities. Although fighting undoubtedly poses a risk of injury, the severity of such injuries is insignificant compared to the potential harm one could suffer from an illegal tackle.

I accept Con. I wish you luck and look forward to debating. The situation concerning the mother and her child seems like her physical actions originated from anger instead of trying to the teach the child a lesson. Now neither you or I know the circumstances of their fight, but if a mother is fighting with her nine year old son and he is physically fighting back, then to me it seems that the problem in this situation is the lack of parenting and communication not the fact that she is using physical force as a way of disciplining. To answer your question though, parents are already allowed to discipline their children using physical force. There is a line between discipline and abuse where when crossed it becomes illegal. But yes, parents do have the right to discipline their children physically and it should stay that way. Discipline is imperative to a child's development. I grew up getting spanked with a wooden spoon, a belt and the traditional hand spanking. I come from a middle class family with two loving parents and two younger sisters. Not that my sisters and I were terrible children growing up but my parents' physical discipline was necessary. Going to the corner for "time out" was in no way effective. Some physical force to a child's butt is going to teach them right from wrong, unlike having a child sit in a corner.

The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

Alright thanks for the quick response Pro. I will try to organize these refutations as best as I can, as Pro's arguments and refutations are all over the place. Refutation 1:Pro says, "Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills."Yes, I agree, but this is common to all professional sports. It is not just hockey where you need to re-learn and re-master fundamental skills. So by this basis, it is logical to assume that all sports are equally difficult. Pro also says, "In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back."As I have already mentioned, it is also very difficult to learn to swim, much more difficult than learning to skate. Pro has not adressed why skating is much more difficult to learn then swimming, so I would assume that he agrees with me (I will get more into this later). As Pro has said, professional players spend "Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills." This would mean that water sports like swimming, or water polo is much more difficult than hockey since these players must relearn fundamental skills, and swimming is harder to learn than hockey.Pro also says, "A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively."What I would say to that is, isn't baseball the same thing? Your bat needs to be an extension of your hands, and you need the same hand eye coordination and focus that hockey has, or you'll get hit in the face with a ball travelling at 90mph. Therefore, by pro's logic, baseball and hockey and water sports would have equal difficulty, proving that hockey is not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. And with jostling and learning where to move, and crucial positioning, in all sports there is some form of this. In basketball, you box out defenders to get the rebound, and in soccer you jostle defenders to get that head from the corner kick.I guess what I'm really saying here is that a lot of the skills between sports are transferrable, like learning where to move and getting good positioning. Therefore, it would mean that all sports are equally difficult.Pro says that " In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general."Isn't that the same with all sports? If you break a leg severely, you will need to re-learn to walk. If you break your arm, you will need to relearn how to throw a ball. It is the same with all sports.Refutation 2:What Pro has provided in this refutation is examples of times where players have maintained focus in the face of danger. And he says this is why ice hockey is a difficult sport.There are many other sports that require the same focus in the face of danger. Like Pro, I can pull examples like these all day. Let's start doing that actually.In football, the quarterback has to maintain focus in order to hit that long pass to his teammate. During this time, there are several 200 pound people running at you trying to tackle you. But still, you need to get the timing right, and throw that pass, even if it means that you'll get crushed under several guys.In baseball, the batter has to maintain focus in order to hit the ball that is traveling at 90mph towards him. Therefore, in all sports you need to maintain focus in the face of danger. Therefore, they are all equally difficult. Refutation 3:Exactly everything can be relative! There is no actual proof that hockey is the hardest sport to play, that is merely an opinion. And you have not even been able to prove that hockey is indeed a difficult sport to play. I have already proved many times that alot of sports require the same skills, therefore making all sports equally difficult to play. Pro also says that there are more people who can swim than skate. But that is not a sufficient measurement of difficulty. The only reason why this is true is because of certain conditions around the world. And please, find me the source where you got that fact. Rebuilding:Therefore, because you cannot provide this information, you can't just say that hockey is the hardest sport to play. As you said, most players devote their full attenion to hockey. Therefore, how can they know that hockey is the hardest sport if they have not tried every single other professional sport? There is no way to tell.Obviously, when hockey players say that hockey is the hardest sport, it is opinion based. And as Pro said earlier, it is annoying. Therefore, that entire argument is invalid.Conclusion:I have not provided any relative arguments today. I proved why all sports are equally difficult, as they require much of the same skills. (hand eye coordination, focus, etc.)It is not just hockey where you need these skills in order to play professional hockey. In Pro's recap he says:"Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING."I will use a similar conclusion.All sports is and continue to be equally difficult to master and play at a high level. Most sports are team games, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, invovles hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy, and most importantly and most underated SWIMMING.Therefore, all sports are equally difficult.

I don't want to fight you but I will if I have toFight the good fight, now I'm coming right at youSpittin' ice that is cold but it sticks like a glueNow I'll teach you to see what is false and what's trueYou seem to think that rape victims are sickAnd deserve the abuse that they get from such pricksAs you claim every dumb Tom, Harry and DickWould be oh so quick to turn such a trickBut two things you've missed in your hurry to judge,Two ways we can see that your words are just fudge:1 Rape victims are victims, we shouldn't begrudgeIf they don't want to carry, it's not up to us.2 Your idea that most people're totally f***edJust shows your philosophy totally sucksYou're projecting your own completely corruptInternal ideas that could never instruct.But you've got the key that will save the dayOr at least that is what you are seeming to sayYou think that the answer is simply to prayAs if that could wash the problem away!***Who you gonna pray to, pray do tell...How you gonna save you from His hell?Who you gonna pray to, pray do tell...How you gonna save you from His hell?***I really hate to do it 'cos the book is just grimyBut I got to show ya your religion's freakin' slimyI gotta quote the book to show just how it stymiesAny moral thinking through its constant whining:Open Deuteronomy, chapter twenty twoListen to how your LORD God commmands you:Verses twenty two through twenty four doTell you quite clearly what you must do:"Torture rape victims to death" says the Lord"Don't you dare put those c**ts to the sword!Torture them, stone them, I won't be ignored!Torture rape victims 'cos I AM THE LORD"!You think that the problem of rape can be mendedBy praying to this ancient, Bronze Age, dementedNotion of God that has clearly been bendedBy folk't think wives should breed for you or... be... dead?I don't think you've any idea what a monsterYahweh, the Lord God, Elohim, that imposterIs, nor how wicked the ideas that He fostersHe's the ultimate gangster, despicable mobster!So bear with me now as I show you his best,And then you can say if you, like the rest,Will still bow your knee to his evil behestAs "every mouth shall Him confess".***Exodus 34, 14 to 26 [1] - God lays down the real 10 commandmentsVerse nineteen: The first offspring of every womb belongs to me. Redeem all your firstborn sons.Ezekiel 20:25-26 [2]So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.Yes, that's right, people of Abrahamic faiths: The LORD demanded that all people sacrifice their first-born sons - and then virtually laughed about how he made this wicked commandment that people might know that HE is THE LORD.***Well, okay, now, getting back to my flow:If you wanna be slave to this sick mofoBe my guest, yo, I can't stop you, no, moBut I want you to know I won't go that lowAnd I want you to see that your arguments blowYour claim as to morals you biblically knowAre nothing but trash and Bronze Age bravadoGet with the times you sick, dumb mo fo!If you really think that the bible is bestI bet you ain't read it! I know, I'll test...Do you know what your words that are blessedSay on abortion, you theistic pest?Read Numbers 5, sixteen - twenty eight [3]Read it and weep, you stupid troll baitNow can you see and read straight?God loves abortions, so why do you hate?Now we've cleared that ancient dribbling,Maybe we'll spot your moral fibbing,And maybe now we'll get a sprinklingOf common sense and moral thinking!You see suff'ring's the stick that we should now useWhen between moral options we find we must chooseAnd whilst you may think that you love all the boosAt one week or two they can't have the blues!If a zygote, morula or blastocyst criesThen maybe your stupid argument fliesBut if something with no brain ups and diesWhy the moral outrage and the lies?A collection of thousands of cells cannot beA human being in reality!And you've no right to claim in your seeThat some magic spirit is there, how likely?So why should a woman be forced to full termFor the rights of some cells that are bare passed a germBecause some foul maggot, some slithering wormDrugged her and raped her, you still hold firm?[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...[2] https://www.biblegateway.com...[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...

This topic is referring to people who get involved in a fight with a malicious hatred, or dislike towards one another. I stand against the resolution stated "Fighting does not solve anything" for the following reasons. Most of the time, before the fight begins between two people, both individuals constantly insult each other, get in each others faces, and just continue these things with non-stop pointless anger towards one another. Now a careful analysis, or personal viewing, shows that after the fight has ended, these things stop. Now there is a few cases where it few continues, but in most every other situation, the two individuals just either ignore each other, or make-up and become friends. Since that none of you could validate a personal experience, I will use a television UFC example. Before Chuck Liddel and Wanderlei Silva fought, they absolutely hated each other. At the weigh-ins, Silva got up into Liddel's face, which led to him flipping Silva off, and an almost pre-fight. After these two warriors battled it out in the octagon, with a very close match, (in which Liddel won) the two hugged, and had each gained a new found respect for each other. Many of these happenings take place around our schools, or homes, and other local places. Most every fight ends with truce, and eventually peace. I will even go as far as to use Wars as examples. What war have we been in, that didn't eventually end in both sides coming to a truce, and being generally peace-ful towards each other? The answer is none. We currently trade with just about every country, in which we have previously had wars with. Those that we don't, we simply ignore. It's not like we're going to constantly fight with those we dis-like. Now it is a very rare occasion, when after a fight, hate and discrimination towards each other continues. Even on this very own site we have examples on this! We all know there are many here who have had hot blood towards another in the past. But how much of that still continues, after a big argument clash? Right now our very own mongeese and theLwerd our slowly piecing back together after a widely popular and disturbing clash between the two of them in the forums (honesty box, and apologies). But slowly everything is becoming peaceful. This fight resulted with both individuals apologizing, and is now becoming a thing of the past. I stand by these arguments, and patiently await my opponent. thankyou -philosophical

Hello FanBoy, So we meet again. I have to admit i don't watch Curling nor care for this sport. But for this debate, i will be arguing why it not just a sport but it been recognized by the Olympics committee as a sport, and it has for a while now. Just a little history of Curling "Evidence that curling existed in Scotland in the early 16th century includes a curling stone inscribed with the date 1511 uncovered (along with another bearing the date 1551) when an old pond was drained at Dunblane, Scotland." (1.) https://en.wikipedia.org... Curling is a sport in which players slide stones on a sheet of ice towards a target area which is segmented into four concentric circles. It is related to bowls, and shuffleboard. Curling has two teams, each with four players, take turns sliding heavy, polished granite stones, also called rocks, across the ice curling sheet towards the house, a circular target marked on the ice. "Curling has been an official sport in the Winter Olympic Games since the 1998 Winter Olympics. It currently includes men's and women's tournaments. A mixed doubles Olympic event was considered but rejected for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.[13] Mixed doubles has now been added to the Olympics in the most upcoming Olympic Games in 2018." (2.)https://en.wikipedia.org... The purpose of a game is to score points by getting stones closer to the house center, or the "button" than the other team's stones. Players from either team alternate in taking shots from the far side of the sheet. The game end or is complete when all eight rocks from each team have been delivered, a total of sixteen stones. If the teams are tied at the end of the game, play continues for as many ends as may be required to break the tie. The winner is the team with the highest score after all ends have been completed. "In international competition, each side is given 73 minutes to complete all of its throws". (3 )https://en.wikipedia.org... You could think of this as a Baseball-style scoreboard, it has 10, and every team needs to try to score in these round sometimes you get nothing or other time you could get in the double digits. A curling stone generally weights anywhere from 42 to 44 pounds. My opponent wants to claim that this isn't a sport or a real sport. but when in fact he is wrong, if Curling wasn't a real sport it would have no business in the Winter Olympics. He also wants to claim anybody could do this, he said: "This is an activity that can be done by anyone and is no different then lawn darts, horse shoe throwing, or darts, you can be a 400lb beer drinking, holding a smoke in your mouth type athlete". Yes, it true you could do this sport if you go to the skating rink, or have a flat surface, where the rock could slide. You can do this sport anywhere like in the street of your neighborhood. So, yes you could do this sport just like any other sport, you can ride a bike, you can play basketball or throw a football around, or you can run. But not everybody could be a professional athlete, you can't just ask the Olympic committee to be part of a curling team you need to qualify for it. By the way lawn darts, horseshoes throwing, or darts in'st an Olympic sport. Curling can be physically demanding: "Sweeping a stone can be highly physically demanding and whilst not every stone will be swept with maximum intensity, the ability to recovery quickly and sustain sweeping intensity throughout a game and tournament is paramount to success. Effective sweeping can require a combination of greater downward force and faster sweeping speed depending on stone speed and playing position, coupled with the ability to sweep on either side of a stone and a high level of team sweeping coordination and efficiency". (4.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... So, no a 400-pound man or woman can not play this sport. Another aspect of my opponent claim is curling is made for the retards and janitors and only they could play, this is further than the truth, Curling actually has an upscale people playing this sport. Kind of like golf, or like Rugby, or Cricket. the wealthy like playing curling. Anyways looking forward to what have you next Fanboy...

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this debate, Now lets move on to round 2. You state that this is cruel and unusual punishment. How is this cruel compared to what a serial killer does to his victims, A rapist does to women, A pedophile does, To a child? This is more humane, A bare knuckle fight as opposed to a serial killer filleting his victims to the bone, A rapist beating up, Cutting up and dumping a rape victim in bushes? The killers have already murdered people, This is a form of redemption for a killer if he wins the match, The loser gets killed in the fight, He was going to be executed anyways. At least this way we made millions from the pay per view death match. People love to see violence, Carnage, Death. It sells. People watch the Indy 500 not for the cars to go around 500 times in a circle but for the big crashes. People love the MMA. Well this would be no different than gladiators in the past. But it would be prison inmates. It would be a form of paying for themselves to be housed, Clothed, Fed and given free education in prison. This is why we need fight clubs in prison, It's only a win-win for society, We generate millions in revenue from the pay per views of the prison fight club and we save money on lethal injection chemicals by having the inmates do the dirty work during a fight to death. Prison Fight Club (PFC) will be more popular than UFC!

ok but if ure hit first or more than once it is self defenceThat doesn't justify shooting your dad when he beats you.My points still stand

The helmet is not designed to effectively protect against CTE because the brain moves around inside your head during a concussion. [1] The helmet"s primary purpose is to protect the head against violent external blunt-force trauma. Removing the helmet because it is bad at doing something that is nearly impossible is an inappropriate solution to a very difficult problem. Rebuttal: There is no helmet designed to effectively protect against CTE, and that is why it should be removed. A helmet is successful at preventing blunt-force trauma. However, what you're effectively saying that the head protection is fine doing only 50% of the job it should be. While it isn't originally designed to be, CTE wasn't known to the world at the time football helmets were implemented, and in reality, their purpose must change or they must be removed completely. If you"ve ever played football, say in the CFL for two years, proper tackling technique involves head up with chest and shoulder contact to a strike zone in the opponent"s chest (or center of gravity), wrapping with arms around the ball carrier, and accelerating through the target with force from your legs and hips. [2] Ideally, that solves the spearing problem. The NFL has a policy in place to penalize spearing as unsportsmanlike conduct and the targeting rule (for intentional head contact) which results in an ejection and fine. The league is not ignoring this problem, rather it is changing the way people play the game by harshly penalizing dangerous hits. Rules specifically prohibit helmet contact with a quarterback, defenseless players like receivers and return men, running backs lowering their head, and of course, spearing. [3] However, the ball carrier, also has an objective to absorb the tackle impact. The ball carrier accelerates with legs and hips, and (this is the important part) lowers his center of gravity below that of the the tackler. This is instinctive for most athletes. It would be nice, if the ball carrier remained nice and high, elongated, and exposed. Then the target zone, instead of moving at a very high speed and attempting to evade the tackle, would absorb a nice hit and plant directly into the ground. No heads would be damaged in this experience. Which brings me back to the images above. Even with attempts at proper tackling technique, two opposing forces drop shoulders and head because the head is attached to the shoulders and chest. The top image shows outstanding shoulder to chest contact, but the heads still collide. The bottom image shows poor tackling technique (but excellent running technique) and the player suffers a concussion, leaving fans with fears of the player injured his neck or spine. Neither situation demonstrates what you labeled "spearing". It's normal football. Both situations demonstrate the vulnerability of the head due to high-speed collisions while players wear body armor, designed specifically for protecting the player against those high-speed collisions. Players feel invulnerable so players hit harder. Good technique goes for a target zone in close proximity to the head. Heads get hit as a result of the speed of the game, the size of the players, the extensive armor, and the desire to impose one"s will physically on the opponent. None of those will change if you remove the helmet. The helmet is designed to protect the head (and neck) from external blunt forces that could cause serious injury, paralysis, and death. Removing the helmet without changing the rest of the body armor is extremely dangerous even with proper tackling technique. Rebuttal: Just because you managed to provide two examples of attempts to correctly tackle resulting in helmet-to-helmet hits does not mean the tackle attempt is always proper: https://www.youtube.com... That is a hit on Jeremy Maclin. No attempt is made to properly tackle, it's simply a headbutt. Furthermore, are you really so naive as to think that a $10,000 fine means anything to a player who makes millions in a calendar year? It doesn't. Players aren't following the rules. The helmet has also not done a stellar job protecting the neck, as you said its job is. A hard shell doesn't protect the neck from locking up in a head to head collision. Finally, have you ever heard of risk homeostasis theory? If a player has a body part (the head in this case) protected, it is naturally instinct to lead with that body part, as it is "protected." Of course, in reality, the helmet has been proven not to protect against CTE. It doesn't matter if that's its purpose, it needs to be, as CTE is becoming an epidemic among football players. Now that I've put my weapons away, thanks for a great discussion so far.

Allright, I think bad words should not be allowed because it can lower your cumulative grades and you can get expelled. Also, it can make people down and many people will start hating you. I will stop here. I will expand more as Necessary.


Question: Should Brawling be Permitted in Ice Hockey?

The practice of fighting in hockey should be prohibited. Permit me to critique the initial remarks of my adversary. In the subsequent round, I will construct my argument for the prohibition of fighting in hockey. "While I acknowledge that fighting poses a risk of injury, it has been an integral part of the game since its inception. There is no justification for banning fighting, as it would not achieve anything and could potentially lead to fan altercations, causing even more controversy." There are several flaws in my opponent's argument that I will address. Firstly, he conceded that fighting is dangerous, yet argued that it should remain due to tradition. This rationale is insufficient, as in the early days of the NHL, players, including goalies, did not wear protective headgear. My opponent then claimed that there is no reason to ban fighting because "it won't do anything." If fighting were banned, resulting in more severe penalties than the current five-minute penalty, it would likely be eradicated, as players would not risk their careers. Moreover, banning fighting would prevent numerous player injuries and could have potentially averted the deaths of Wade Belak, Rick Rypien, and Derek Boogaard, who all died due to injuries related to their role as enforcers in the NHL. Contrary to my opponent's assertion that fans "will just end up fighting" if the NHL bans fighting, I disagree. Fan base tensions often escalate due to player fights, which can ignite intense rivalries. Best of luck to you.

In the world of sports, it is clear that there are certain sports that take more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals then other sports. In the argument that hockey is better than football, it is clear that hockey takes more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals than football, overall and in general.

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 " ...

Well, Pro forfeited again, so I will just summarize my previous arguments. So, bullies are trying to make themselves feel superior by disparaging others. Although this may not seem good, people who need to vent their anger should be given the opportunity to do so. When one changes their perspective, they can see that if bullies weren't given a chance to vent their anger from their own problems, they may resort to violence to deal with their problems. How different the view on bullying is if you look at it from the other side! As previously stated, I have had experience being 'bullied' and have also been the bully in some cases. This is obviously not good, but being a bully is easy, and bullies need easy jobs like that. Also, my friends and I have all gotten past the initial aggravation of bullying and have learned to deal with it. We now no longer feel sad or get affected, because our defenses have been trained all these years. In many cases, people are coerced into violence {See my address of the Columbine Shooting in Round 2}, and this is of course present. But one cannot use those examples and say that bullying leads to violence. SOME people resort to violence, but those kinds of people would be violent in any situation. In conclusion, the argument I have supported and stressed is that how one reacts to bullying is very important. The way I did, the way I saw others do, is the way that everyone should. Simply learn from the experience, stand up to them, and not let them tear down your walls. If students reacted in a better manor to bullying, rather than resorting to violence, leaving school, etc, I don't see a problem with bullying going on, as long as the student knows how to handle it. This is why, rather than have talks in school about why bullying is wrong and kids shouldn't do it, there should be talks in school about how to HANDLE the bullies. The seminars should teach kids how to stand up to them, and how to make them stop. If kids were taught how to react, and how to grow from their experiences, bullying would not be a problem, but rather an effective way for kids to learn and understand how the world works, a world that isn't always perfect. Thank you. - Shadow-Dragon -

My opponent has made no arguments. As Instigator and Pro he has the burden of proof. I have given six well-documented reasons why the legislation is not justified. The resolution therefore fails.

Hello fanboy. Thank you for the kind words. I realize you put yourself in a unwinnable position to win this debate. I'm pretty sure you also realize this reality. I have provided proof in the last three rounds. This debate actually should had been just 3 rounds. Because now we just running in circles. You trying to claim curling isn't a sport or it just for retards and janitors doesn't hold water. You said you going to bring your A game now. After 3 brutal round. The problem is you have no chance to win this debate because you are fighting a unwinnable debate. So, really it not me you are losing too. You lose once you post this debate up. You would be losing to anyone else on this debate. And by the way this 4th round you didn't do any better than the previous rounds. Sorry to say.... You the one that cause this to yourself, by bring this debate to light. Now i have to bury this debate 6 feet under. You did it again. You mention websites trying to clam something that not true at all. This time I'm not going to single out these sites you provided. The first three site you mention isn't proof. You trying to single out the Special Olympics as your evidence. You trying to point out curling is in them, so it was made for retards and janitors. If we go with that logic then just about every sport in these Special Olympics are for retards and janitors. Did you know Special Olympics PLAY "ALL SPORTS". (8.) http://www.specialolympics.org... Do you know what Special Olympics is really for? "Special Olympics is the world's largest sports organization for children and adults with intellectual disabilities". (9.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Again you failed on providing inadequate information. Let me ask you something. If you go ahead and ask a janitors a real janitors if they play curling. You know what that answer would be? The answer would be No. Most if not all would not play this sport. And you want to know why? Well most janitors are old, and they would be unfit to play this sport. If you actually watch curling you would learn they all fit and not old. And just because a janitors can sweep doesn't mean they could sweep like a professional curler. So, you think you can ride a bike you could be a Professional Cyclist? Or just because you could swim, that make you a Professional swimmer? So your theory is again out the window on janitors playing curling. Provided no proof again for your claims. By the way the websites you provided has no details on how a curler is a janitor. The last and final round is now here. You better make this good unlike your previous rounds. This is your last chance to impress....

Ok I will start by saying that I am new up here so thank you to whomever chooses to by my opponent. To start I will say that I am a black girl and I feel that the N- word should be banned from the vocabulary of every race and yes I do understand that the law states that every person has the freedom of speech.

You are trying to accomplish something by punching me. Those are your intentions. Morality doesnt apply to accidental. It is about deciding if something is good or bad before you do it.

Hello! I've decided to be the con in this debate. ~My Opinion~ I'm personally not a fan of football and quite dislike it, but I also disagree with your opinion, so that's why I'm in this debate. So please be aware my responses are not the bias from a football fan. I hate it as much as you do. I just personally disagree with your reasoning. ~My Response~ You are correct in that it's a dangerous sport, but those that do play in the field are made aware of it as soon as they show any interest in the sport. While I do admit there is no way to truly make this sport safe (the more we cushion the blows of other football players in the field, the harder they hit, according to studies), that's a risk that they are well aware of. Thank you for reading~

I contend that hunting for sport should be illegal. Humans are an an omnivorous species and as such we raise and keep "slaughter houses" where animals are kept and killed for the purpose of food consumption. While some morally object to this practice, most of us don't worry about where our food comes from - we just like to eat it. Eating is the primary reason for the acceptance of this murder. We accept that in addition to tastiness, animal consumption has been a natural process for our species since the dawn of humanity, and offers nutrients and other health benefits that protein substitutes and vitamins simply do not. However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport." The problem with considering hunting a sport is that usually when one chooses to engage in sport, i.e. basketball, football or even swimming, his or her competitors or even the individual themself knows and chooses to participate in that activity. With hunting, the animal being killed has absolutely no inclination that they are participating in this so called "sport." Lisa from the great movie My Cousin Vinny describes, "Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water... BAM! A f****** bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces!" An animal has no way of knowing that they are being hunted for one's amusement. They are not choosing to participate in the sport. They are not challenging you or accepting the challenge of your hunting skills vs. their survival skills. Thus, it's murder. An analogy to demonstrate this reasoning is boxing or Ultimate Fighting. If one were to randomly select someone to beat the living crap out of, it would be battery/assault. But when both opponents are choosing to consciensously participate in a battle of the senses, technique or skill, THEN and only then is it a SPORT. Now, Con has mentioned that overhunting is only the third leading cause for animal extinction in the world. While that may be true, it doesn't mean that hunting or overhunting should still be permissible simply because there are 2 more prominent causes. For instance, if larceny is the 3rd most committed crime in the United States, should that make it morally permissible or any less worth prosecuting simply because theft and burglary come in at numbers 1 and 2? Clearly no, if the act (larceny) is inherently wrong. So far I have argued that hunting for sport is inherently wrong because it is done for the sole enjoyment of taking pride in one's ability to kill another innocent being without a warranted necessity. Con has stated, "hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt." In other words they like the challenge of seeing if they can overcome animal instincts and defeat (kill) their "enemy." Two counters- One, this is a cheap experiment/win for humanity, as we are equipped with guns and other tools/devices that are man-made and do not come solely from nature. If we truly wanted to compete, we would use home-made spears and other minor devices instead of automatic rifles. And two, given today's technological advances, it is more than feasible to assume that we could invent some sort of system that allows humans to test their skill and ability without having to actually kill a living and innocent being. Consider Duck Hunt the Nintendo video game (hopefully some of you are old enough to remember that)... If my 14 year old opponent cannot, think about other more realistic yet censored and safe forms of competition, i.e. paintball. It is a way to act out a "war" against conscious opponents, without causing any type of real death or destruction. I contend that we can develop a program or game or SOMETHING to give hunters the "adrenaline" they so desperately seek, without having to comprimise the lives of animals, the morality of killing in general, OR the reality that many animals have and continue to go extinct because of this heinous "sport." This also effectively counters Con's point that hunting is not a slaughter, simply because "only GOOD" hunters actually achieve the kill. What kind of flawed logic is that?! That's like saying a singer is only a singer if they are good at singing. Clearly that is not the case. Next Con points out that no animal has gone extinct in North America since 1950 due to hunting. Again I have two counters. One, why is North America being singled out? He fails to mention other continents that continuously have animals going extinct thanks to human interference and overhunting. Two, he is absolutely wrong with his assertion. "By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches. The North Atlantic catches have fallen by half since 1950, and the devastating decrease of ocean organisms are still continuing at a faster rate than ever before. Fish prices have risen a sixth fold during that time because of such demand for more fish. The only way to curb the amount of fish in the North Atlantic is to decrease the amount of fishing drastically, or else all hopes will be gone." Source- http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com... Fishing, according to Con's definition, does count as a form of hunting. Another thing to consider is that legal hunting makes it possible for the wrong people to obtain licenses for weapons and firearms which can be dangerous to society. If hunting were illegal, the number of gun licenses would be drastically decreased, thus there would be less opportunity for the practice of illegal gun sales and trade. Also keep in mind that an instigated appreciation for violence for children of a young age can be dangerous to their mental health and the safety of others. Psychologists note that a violent tendency towards animals is an indication that one will harbor violent thoughts and carry out depraved actions as an adult. Now I'm not saying that all hunters are crazy psycho killers, however, the idea that a CHILD can be allowed to own a gun and use it to kill something (and possibly someone!) when they can't even legally buy a pack of cigarettes until they're 18 seems like incredibly backwards logic. On a final note, I'd like to note note that even if a hunter DID kill for food (and not just hanging a pair of antlers or stuffed animal skin on their walls), it is still wrong as it is not a warranted necessity. Legal "slaughter houses" exist which are far more government regulated than any hunting law could be. It is strictly enforced that these habitats exist at a certain standard of production and performance. And while I'm not arguing that they are more morally permissible than hunting, it is common knowledge that the likelihood of their perpetuated existance is far greater than the notion that most people hunt (or even many people, as most people do not), so they will continue to exist. Establishing hunting laws is not difficult, but enforcing them is. Thus if there is a legal and relatively safe way to raise and utilize animals for food, clothing, or whatever your preferred use may be, then hunting is an immoral and frivolous activity which comprimises the life of innocent creatures for the sake of some people's amusement.

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 the Sale of Packaged Water be Prohibited?

The sale of bottled water should be prohibited.

To put things into perspective, if you search for "bottled water" on Google Images, you'll see that it's predominantly images of bottled water in supermarkets. And what's this about having bottled water in classrooms, carrying it while jogging, or in urban areas? In the 1950s in New York City, you wouldn't see anyone carrying a bottle of water, not even in the 1940s, 1930s, or 1920s! Yet, people still managed to survive. Bottled water was introduced in the 1970s.

1) Bottled water is not a good investment: Consider brands like Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola's Dasani, which are sold in 20-ounce bottles at vending machines for the same price as soft drinks. Assuming you can find a machine that charges $1, that works out to 5 cents per ounce. These brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled near their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Compare this to gasoline, which is extracted from the ground as crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and then shipped to your local filling station. The average price per gallon in the U.S. is around $3. With 128 ounces in a gallon, gasoline costs just over 2 cents per ounce. This explains why there's no shortage of companies eager to enter the bottled water business. In terms of price compared to production cost, bottled water outperforms Big Oil.

2) No healthier than tap water: In theory, bottled water in the U.S. is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70% of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in developed countries are well-regulated. In the U.S., municipal water is under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency, which regularly inspects it for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community measures up? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups rightly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there are hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than tap water.

3) Bottled water creates garbage: Bottled water generates

caffiene should be closely regulated because too much can cause you to become hyperactive, which weakens your body, then there's the crash, your body becomes even weaker, and you can get sick more often. Plus, the drinks that come with caffiene in them (soda, coffee, etc.) make get you ready for the morning and wake you up, it is terrible for you (plus, coffee stains your teeth.)

Where are the morons! ? But I think medicine and science shouldn't take seriously these frauds and swindlers who sell water and market it as a cure all or whatever they may claim that it cures. Feeling better is all fine and dandy but these companies/people/quacks lie and mislead the public and need to be actively punished like any other business that would do so. These claims must be taken seriously, because they are scientific claims- false scientific claims. They cannot market water as a drug and sell it for a large price. Homeopathy does not work, though just thinking something works might make people feel better or even produce some type of artificial well being, it is not a drug and does not cure anything. I could just as easily sell sand and say that by putting this sand in your toilet, you will feel better. You might in fact feel better, but the claim is no less garbage and not proof that the sand has an effect as anything but 'delusional'.

Well I would like to give you a thanks for stepping up to the threshold. As I feel strongly among this topic hopefully I can find some light within your reasoning. I never intended on every person having a personal incinerator in their backyard. That idea is both ridiculous as not environmentally posotive. Items that are recyclable should be, and extra left over food components are proven to be a form of energy. In New York, U.S.A. I remember the Governor is implementing a new program to reduce the costs of energy consumption by providing every resident with a pod that food scraps would be placed in. To sum up my idea I believe we need to have airproof garbage cans that can hold a generous amount and release no funmes. This would reduce our already overbearing amount of waste, and decrease the expenses to run a home yearly. In the average year the U.S. tends to use 80,000,000,000 Bags. If the U.S. alone eliminates their usage we can cut the mean approximately about 18%, or 6.56"10^10 over 8"10^10. All I'm saying is all we need to do is decrease our main stress point. Plastic tends to be our main problem within the enviroment. If you have a broken pipe in your home and it keeps raising higher until it's overwhelming. What do you do? Are you going to keep raising the roof when it gets too congested or fix the problem itself.I leave you to ponder over that analogy and potentially view the reasoning behind my judment.

For my next two points, we don't need fish because if every fish in the ocean and seas died, we could take out all the water and make land for generations to come for humans. This is useful because everyone knows that humans are going to overpopulate. We could of also found MH-370 if there wasn't water. For my second point, if you eat fish, they have 70,000 bones in one single fish. The non boned fish however costs way more money. Good luck in refuting theawesomeguy!

You have made some fair points, con. I am fully aware that this is my fault for not clarifying, but please keep the last round of debate short. I just want to sum up each of the points you have made, and you can do the same for mine. Thank You. 1. Civil rights. The government should be allowed to outlaw something if it harms the body. Like you said, there is specific evidence that it does harm the body. 2. Exaggerated harmYou are correct that there is no legal backing, except my debate is that there should be strict laws against smoking. Notice that I made laws plural. As far as the environment goes, trash on the beach does hurt the environment. It collects in rivers, oceans, and dams, where fish eat it. Do you ever see a cop pull some on over for tossing a cigarette but out of the window? No, but they would if you toss you soda can.

San Francisco is the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children. The same type of law is gaining momentum in New York. I will be taking the position of con in this debate which will consist of 4 rounds. Round 1 is for acceptance of this debate. Round 2 is for opening statements and for arguments to be presented. Round 3 is to address arguments made in the previous round. Round 4 is for closing statements. The definition of an unhealthy restaurant meal is is a meal that contains more than 600 calories, does not contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.

My opponent has suggested that placing public safety and individual rights and liberties before the profit model of corporations is idealistic. I disagree with his perspective. As the world survived before the advent of plastic, oil, and fossil fuels, I suppose it would continue were these materials cease to be used. Also, other more ecologically friendly options are currently available. If not, others would be discovered. Necessity is the mother of invention. However, my argument stated that personal and societal rights should take precedent over products manufactured by corporations. I did not say that the products should be automatically trashed. It has beeen proven that corporations that produce toxic or harmful products disproportionately build their factories in underprivileged, disadvantaged and oppresses communities. Issues such as environmental racism are proven 'realities' for many disadvantaged people."Poor communities...tend to bear a disproportionate amount of pollution and toxic waste from factories and polluting industries that are located inside their neighbourhoods and territories, often because poor communities lack the political and financial resources to move these industries elsewhere. Although environmental problems disproportionately affect people in poor nations, they also disproportionately affect poor people in wealthy nations, especially where environmental pollution and toxic waste is concerned. For these reasons, we can understand that environmental problems are also problems of injustice and poverty. " [1] "The extensive use of fracking in the US, where it has revolutionised the energy industry, has prompted environmental concerns...The first is that fracking uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, at significant environmental cost. The second is the worry that potentially carcinogenic chemicals used may escape and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site. The industry suggests pollution incidents are the results of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique...environmental campaigners say that fracking is simply distracting energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels." [2]As stated, these toxic manufacturers are disproportionately found in underprivileged and/or racially casigated and marginalized communities. However, as global warming suggests, these practices have a negative environmenal impact on the entire planet.Toxins released by these manufacturers have been known to contain carcinogens and have a myriad of adverse ecological and physical impacts."What human rights?...right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are natural rights..."As quoted by my opponent, the people have the right to life, liberty, etc.. Thus, if a corporation in the U.S. engages in practices that endanger the lives of the people, those practices should not be allowed."...a company that asks for money in exchange for services or products is violating peoples' rights...have the right to those products without having to pay for it."My argument is not against the basic principles of barter or trade. However, when a company attempts to monopolize the market and hinder individuals from plying their trade it is clearly a violation. Mosanto and the gov't (TRIPS agreement) restricting farmers' ability to save seeds is a good example. While the courts have ruled to protect Monsanto when their seeds contaminate the cfrops of other farmers, this is clearly an intrusion on the part of Monsanto. The fact that the GMO created by Monsanto have been proven to cause cancer, yet, do not have to be labeled as such is a clear illustration of the collusion between gov't and corporations. A negative result of the corporatocracy."This is called Capitalism...Socialism"My argument does not mention any economic system in particular."...corporation should...consider peoples' safety. Your safety is your own problem. Of course you cannot work in unsafe conditions"While my argument does not refer to wworking conditions, my opponent is incorrect. - "Workers at the site on Lawrenceville Highway were doing stucco and brick work on an unsafe scaffolding system and were at risk of falls, the leading cause of death for construction workers. Hundreds of these workers die each year and thousands more suffer catastrophic, debilitating injuries...Our investigation found that several contractors were ignoring basic rules about fall protection and created unsafe working conditions...In this case, the project was behind schedule and the employers chose to put profits ahead of the safety of their workers." [3]- "LaWanda Williamson’s arm was burned by fryer oil at the McDonald’s where she says she works in Detroit, her manager was standing right next to her...And the manger was standing there like, ‘Oh snap, you ok?’ And it was burned she never even offered me the [burn] cream. I didn’t even know they had burn cream...We go to work and get treated like crap, but we have to go to work because we have to make a living. [This way] the workers will eventually get managers that care and provide a proper, safe environment for us.”[4]My argument refers to practices of corporations that negatively effect individuals and the communities in which they are located. Goods and services such as cell phone towers, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. have been known to cause deaths to individuals who are not employees."It is right that corporation cannot be physically injured, but the people running them can. Corporation have interests and property...Corporate person-hood is an American legal concept...same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual... The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people"... they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued..."My opponent admits to the crux of my argument. Corporations cannot be physically injured. Thus, when viewed from a different perspective, treating corporations as individuals is a way for the individuals and groups in these corporations to protect themselves from criminal (not civil) culpability for actions that carry the risk of death to uninvolved parties, (i.e. neighborhoods, communities, individuals, society, etc.) In short, while these corporations are legal fictions, they threaten and take the lives of real conscious beings and pollute the environment and water supply in the areas that they are located. These toxins even affect unborn children by causing miscarriages, birth defects and deformities.[5] The threat, risk, and actuality of death should prohibit the ability of a corporation to be formed or continue production.I have yet to mention pharmaceutical corporations which cause some of the greatest harm to society. It is known that their lobbyist are paid to urge governments and doctors to endorse pharmaceutical remedies over homeopathic or natural lifestyles and medicines.I would like to close this round with a quote from Adam Smith who is considered by many to be one of the founders of capitalism in the U.S.:"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their good both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." [6]I look forward to further examination of the issue.http://environmentaltranslation.org... [1]http://www.bbc.com... [2]https://www.osha.gov... [3]http://michiganradio.org... [4]http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org... [5]http://www.globalissues.org... [6]

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...

You are technically supposed to be pro because you are for this topic and not against it. If you renamed this debate to something you would disagree or go against, then you should be con. But nonetheless, I will begin the debate and determine whether or not prohibition is good or bad. Well, since you think that it is good for society, then I will state why it is a bad social policy. I agree that prohibition is a bad social policy. It prohibits or prevents people from using, accessing, or witnessing something that they want or desire. Similar to a ban, if they do attempt to do it, it is considered illegal and they have to pay the consequences. Most of the time, it is basically a meaner way of saying to not break certain laws that many break without realizing or caring about. But other times, it is just a ban but not as serious but is still the law. And what happens if something is prohibited? People will most likely find ways to do it even though it is against the law simply because the government is denying them of doing it even though it may seem normal to them. Basically, when a prohibition is put into effect, people will do their best to illegally do what the prohibition tells them not to do, because humans are wired to be defiant at times. Other problems that prohibition causes is the increase of crime. Since it is now considered illegal to do it, more and more people will try to break the law in order to get or do what they are prohibited from doing. They are now considered criminals for doing it. But usually that is not the case unless it is like a ban and prevents people from using or accessing something such as alcohol and drugs. As it becomes "viral", many gangs and other criminal organizations will try to find ways to start illegal businesses to sell such prohibited items to the regular citizen at ridiculous prices. Since it is banned, it is better to pay for it at a high price than not having it at all, and criminal organizations know this. Many criminals will earn bug bucks from them and will most likely result in conflicts with other illegal businesses leading to other crimes. Finally, the government will also most likely not make as much of a profit as people will be trying to purchase said illegal items. (If the prohibition is preventing laws from being broken and not item bans, then this doesn't apply for it.) Since it is now illegal, the government cannot tax it, and will not make direct profit out of it. Sure, they can tax citizens for it, but what's better for them and the people: higher taxes or taxes for the banned items? Also, stores and businesses cannot sell or manufacture and will not be able to make profit as well. Eventually, it will disrupt the economy, and in rare occasions, it will force the government to lift the ban. (But if the prohibition is banning on something that cannot be made any profit off of, then this will be invalid as well for this debate.) Before I finish my rebuttal, there are some mistakes that you made throughout your opening introduction. I will be listing them down below so you can pay attention and improve on your next rebuttal: -It is too short and too vague to be even understood or interpreted by the average person. -You are con when you should be pro as you agree with the topic. -Because you are vague, I am not sure if you mean like a ban or as a crime prevention law. -Social policy is too general; either put as morals and ethics or as law.

Your first two paragraphs appear to me to be irrelevant, because I've already said that I agree with the fact that smoking is not healthy. Everyone agrees with the fact that smoking is not healthy. There simply isn't a tenable position that smoking is healthy, which is why I'm not arguing that and why that's not at all what we're debating. Smoking certainly does contain many chemicals and cause many diseases (even more than the ones you have listed!), and it is a given fact that if no one smoked, the world would certainly be a healthier place. But again, as I opened my first argument, you're not providing a solution (and neither is banning smoking in public places!). Your third paragraph is simply not verified by any measures. It MAY help people refrain from smoking and SOME ARGUE that there'd be a decline and a ban COULD increase people going out and there MAY also be a sudden realization and it MAY cause people to take another look at the situation. Sure, but NASA may have faked the moon landing and I could be Harrison Ford. The cold truth of the matter is that not permitting people to smoke in public areas will not help people refrain from smoking. Like I have already stated, the prohibition did not stop people from drinking and many countries right now are examining the idea that making drugs against the law does not actually stop people from doing drugs. Here (http://www.leap.cc...) is a related article, geared towards drugs but still synonymous. Namely: "History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed". According to a study done in 2013 (http://www.drugabuse.gov...), "55.8 million Americans" are addicting to cigarettes (and likely many more who aren't admitting to an addiction). Banning smoking entirely isn't going to stop these people from smoking, and banning smoking in public places is just going to have them smoke in private places. In many municipalities, bars and restaurants are considered private as they are privately owned and operated (just like the property they are on), and so a ban on smoking in public places could push people to these, in reality more populated, places to smoke. I can't interpret your fourth paragraph to be in any way different from your first two: sure, smoking costs people who smoke a lot of money. I agree that they could buy something more valuable and more healthy, and that even your non-backed statement about the correlation between displaying cigarettes and cigarette sales likely true, but neither of them seem to have much relation to the debate of whether or not smoking in public should be banned. You did ask, "But that else can be the solution [to smoking being a prevalent addiction] if not limiting people [by banning it in public places]?" to which I will respond: the solution to this problem, rather than passing laws that say "you can't do that" from an ivory tower (which in paragraph 2 I have shown to not be an effective method) is the proper use of rehabilitation centers for addicts. Addiction is a sickness, and they need help- saying "well you can't do that, specifically just in this place" isn't going to help them.