Question: Should there be a Simplified Process for Discharging Student Debt in Bankruptcy?

Personal bankruptcy can be a viable solution for debt relief.

Personal bankruptcy was established to relieve individuals of unsecured debt, such as credit card balances. Contrary to popular belief, not repaying a loan isn't always equivalent to "stealing." In the case of credit cards, the "borrowed" money is created by the bank without any collateral, making any repayment a pure profit for the bank. Additionally, the exorbitant interest rates, often exceeding 20%, can be seen as exploitative, especially when compared to the paltry 1% interest rates offered on savings. The only real downside to declaring bankruptcy is its presence on one's record, but this is not as detrimental as it seems. After 7 years, it becomes largely irrelevant, and during this period, one may not need credit. Even if credit is required, building a credit score can lead to numerous credit card offers. For college students burdened by student loans, which cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, using credit cards to pay off these loans becomes a viable alternative. Similarly, IRS debts can be managed in this manner. Paying off significant student loans or IRS debts with credit cards and then declaring bankruptcy can lead to a fresh start, rather than being saddled with a large debt. Starting with a zero balance instead of a -$50,000 debt can be financially advantageous in the long run. Even for those without college or IRS debt, spending $50,000 on a new car, travel, clothes, and electronics can be justified by the eventual bankruptcy, as these items cannot be taken away. Instead of spending 20 years repaying debt, one can begin anew with $50,000 worth of assets and start saving money. This strategy not only makes financial sense, but it could also be considered a smart financial move, given the minimal long-term impact on one's credit history. It's a decision that seems almost too good to pass up!

Though I will readily admit that this is possibly one of my least favorite LD topics of all time, I want to run my cases for blocking purposes. Plus, I feel as though I have been long absent from DDO. :) I ask that my opponent use LD format, but I'm not going to be a huge stickler about it. In other words, the purpose of running this is two-fold: I want a good debate, but I also want to be able to run it in such a way that helps my kids block out my arguments and a decent neg case. This requires LD format. I also ask the the rounds mimic competition slightly in that RD 3 is reserved for voting issues only (i.e. please no new arguments). --------------------------------------------------------- I affirm, resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Observation 1: Definitions Standardized Exit Exam: any state-wide assessment that must be passed prior to receiving one's public high school diploma. The affirmative acknowledges that some states choose not to assess a student's potential to successfully exit high school using the stereotypical multiple-choice test. Observation 2: Standards. V: Justice. Justice, defined by Aristotle as giving each person his or her due, is precisely what education is about. Justice as related to education requires equality of distribution, as every citizen is due a culturally acceptable education in order to succeed within society, otherwise the concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the affirmative will strive to achieve this due for all US public education students. C: A legitimate system of education. In order to have a meaningful debate on education reform, we cannot neglect the system that the test is directly linked to. The affirmative contends that exit exams not only fail to indicate mastery within the educational system, but entrench the inequality of education distribution to the detriment of student success. 1.My first contention is that exit exams test a deeply biased system of education, which makes the exam invalid. A. US school systems are socio-economically stratified by resources, materials, & personnel. It is widely acknowledged in countless educational studies over the years that the education system in the United States, like all other human institutions, is rife with disparities. Unfortunately, as it is in most cases, the poor bear the brunt of the burden, receiving less qualified educational instructors and less overall resources than districts with more available funds. This inequality oftentimes manifests itself in the form of standardized exam results, as detailed by Viadero: "The detrimental effects of the new policy were harder on girls than on boys. Girls experienced a 19-percentage point drop in graduation rates after the Californian High School Exit Exam… was implemented, while the graduation rate for boys with similar academic profiles decreased by 12 percentage points over the same period. Likewise, graduation rates among black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students declined by 15 to 19 percentage points following the enactment of the exit exam policy. The comparable graduation-rate drop for white students in the same achievement quartile was 1 percentage point." (2009) Since a standardized test assesses one's competency within a set of standards, if all of those standards are disparately taught, the test cannot be valid. B. Results of this invalid exam withhold diplomas unjustly, and even prevent student mastery and success. Exams, in their inability to solve for inequalities in education, simply entrench already disadvantaged students further by labeling them falsely as failures. Since the educational standards of a given state cannot be equally represented in every classroom in that state due to these deep-seeded disparities, the students who are most underserved are more likely to fail those exams. The psychological effect of being branded a failure is described as Viadero continues: "Even though students have plenty of opportunities to retake the exam—and most do—poor, inner-city students who just missed the passing cutoff in 10th grade are less likely to graduate on time than demographically similar students who just barely passed, even though both groups scored at roughly the same levels on the 10th grade exam. Failing or passing the tests seems to have no statistically significant effect, though, on the probability of graduation for wealthier, suburban students." (2009) The stigma of failure, even though that failure is generally one of the institution, and not the student, is enough to significantly reduce the chances of a poorer student graduating. Students who are mistreated by the system, and who do not graduate as a result, are much less likely to succeed, and will even become a social liability. Carnoy explains: "High school is where economically disadvantaged young people—many of them African Americans and Latinos—make it or break it educationally. High school determines how these students will be incorporated into work and social structures. High school is also where educational reformers' efforts to improve how much students learn face the acid test. If students do not finish high school with their cohort, they are likely to be marginalized from the mainstream and to become a social liability. Reforms aiming to improve educational quality must ultimately be evaluated in terms of improving high school completion rates." (2005) 2. My second contention is that standardized exit exams offer no academic benefits to those who pass them. Even if the system itself weren't inherently damaged, the test itself, in both material and form, do not correlate to a student's mastery of important skills or future success. Considering that high school is a preparatory institution for college and the workforce, as well as the final stop in a 12-year quest for what society deems as crucial cognitive skills, if the exit exam cannot prove mastery or indicate a readiness for graduation from this institution, it must be abolished. Warren & Grodsky published a comprehensive study of exit exams in 2009 which spans the last 30 years of educational data regarding the exams. Over that 30 years, they discovered the following: First of all: "We found no evidence for any effect of exit exams…on reading or math achievement at the mean or at any of several cut-points of the achievement distribution. These results hold for 13-year-olds and for 17-year-olds and don't vary across racial/ethnic or social class backgrounds, undermining claims of disparate impact." Second of all: "Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." In other words, Warren & Grodsky found that exit exams not only do not test a student's competency accurately in reading or math, but that they also have no bearing whatsoever on a student's employability in the US workforce. As exit exams have proven themselves as illegitimate measures of academic achievement, they cannot be used to provide legitimacy to the education system. Have at me :)

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

My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you.

On the subject of grading this debate: There is a difference between a competition and education, and between score and grade. A grade pertains to ones performance in an academic endeavor, but a score pertains to the rating of someone in a competition, like a debate. Saying that people voting on a debate is giving us a grade, is like saying that a soccer game is graded. One indication of this is that anyone who votes can give certain categories to one person and other categories in favor of another, and is not giving an objective rating to each person individually. Rebuttal to point #1: Instant gratification isn’t a good thing. People do better in life if they can work towards a more concrete, important goal further down the road [1. ] This goal can be to learn enough to pursue a career they are interested in, or to learn something interesting about the world. Grades detract from ones ability to think this way because they force people to do less difficult activities. This whole argument plays right into a lot of the contentions that I brought up because all of your ideas focus on the idea that any motivation is as good as any other motivation and that as long as a student is motivated, you are doing something right. The whole point of my fourth contention is to show that extrinsic motivation is detrimental to important intrinsic motivation, as well as bringing a host of other problems with it. In the case you mention with the student Bobby, there are a few things that you don’t account for. Firstly it doesn’t account for the fact that Bobby, instead of being motivated to get the grade, is motivated to get the PS3. This makes things even worse, now getting the A doesn’t give Billy a sense of accomplishment, getting a PS3 does. So now the motivation to succeed in any intellectual way is completely gone. Secondly, this means that Bobby is more likely to forget what he learned, as my earlier study shows. And thirdly Bobby doesn’t do the more difficult problems and doesn’t take intellectual risks because he is only interested in getting the grade. This also means that Bobby doesn’t do more work than is necessary for things that he is interested in because it could harm his A. You state that “Even if this motivates students to learn indirectly they are learning. ” But they aren’t retaining what they are learning, and aren’t learning in a meaningful way, aren’t striving to know more. Grades (along with rote memorization and standardized curriculums and testing) are what Carl Sagan meant when he said “Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. ” Kids file knowledge away as ‘learned’ instead of ‘interesting and useful’ and ask questions like ‘will we need to know this for the test’ instead of, can we learn more about that. Rebuttal to point #2: I see two problems in this contention. Firstly, this contention is irrelevant. This debate is about whether or not education is benefited, not whether educators are helped to make decisions. Even if you accept that as a valid argument, once again we as a society are putting ease and comfort above education. The other main problem I see with this argument is that the whole idea of needing an objective way of determining between students results in the detraction from the overall quality of the students. It is like a college cutting off a child’s hand and then using how well they can withstand pain. The students who are best at handling get to go to college, but all the students are worse for it because they don’t have a hand. If in setting up a standard on which to choose people, you make everybody worse, it isn’t a good standard. Colleges can look at narratives and work more on the basis of interviews. As fare as your one campus switched argument, the fact that one campus switched doesn’t mean that they were right, or that all non-grading campuses should follow. Hampshire College does not employ grades, and MIT doesn’t grade for freshman year to reduce stress, and foster student’s interest in the subject matter. Rebuttal to point #3: Once again, grades reduce to the least common denominator. You may be able to show students that they aren’t learning well slightly more effectively, but it comes at the cost that on average, all your students will score worse on the quiz, and forget more of the material. Additionally students can tell from their professor’s comments whether or not they understand material, but in this case are motivated to fix what they did wrong because they are interested in the subject, and not merely trying to get a grade. Rebuttal to point #4: Firstly, I don’t see how grades remove a bias. Teachers that are more likely to say that a student they like is better than a student they dislike are also more likely to give a better grade on an essay to a student they like than to one they dislike. Additionally, students who are learning for a grade are less likely to talk because they feel they are constantly being matched up to their classmates and to some arbitrary objective standard, and are therefore more afraid of making mistakes. If class participation is being graded, then students worry about their comments level of complexity, when adding what they have to say to a conversation is the first step to getting their ideas tested and coming up with more complex ones. I personally talk with friends about things that I am not quite sure about, and may seem somewhat absurd, to use them as a sounding board. I have a more interesting, developed, objective standard because I have taken the time to voice my opinions in setting where I don’t feel threatened. As a result of this, I am more confident about stating my ideas in class; I am not worried about a grade, but about having an interesting conversation. In this way, taking away grades gives students spontaneity, creativity and collaboration, all of which are essential. Narratives are just as biased as grades, but they tell more. In conclusion, I would like to state two things. Firstly my opponent’s second third and fourth arguments all rest on the idea that students, teachers colleges and/or parents need a way of discerning whether or not a student is learning, and that the only way to do this is to grade them. Not only have I already stated that there are other alternatives that allow for this, but I have also showed a myriad of ways in which the practice of grading is detriment to students. Unless my opponent can show that these other forms of judgment pose the same detriments to Education, he looses these three points. This follows from the fact that, when comparing my alternative, which doesn’t have any detriments to its name (and is in fact more indicative than just assigning a student a number or letter) and my opponent’s, which does; it is a fairly clear choice in favor of my alternative. Secondly, my opponents first argument is erroneous in that it rests on ideas that I have already disproven, namely that all motivation is equal, and that none is detrimental. If my opponent can not directly show that his form of motivation (grades) do not cause the harms that I have laid out he looses this contention as well. This covers all of my opponent’s contentions. To ensure that students are, on average, more creative, intrigued and intrinsically motivated, and to increase their retention of knowledge, their ambition and their inquisitiveness, I urge a pro ballot, thank you. [1] . https://www.apa.org...

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

Thanks again to Logic_on_rails. Let’s make this short and sweet. First point: Pro , The Instigator of this debate, determined his resolution and the rules for this debate. Pro has attacked me for not rebutting his arguments in my Second Round. Readers will recall the rules, as provided by Pro. Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, Resolution / Model Outline and Definitions Round 2: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals (see below on this) Round 3: New Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments) It is my opinion that in the spirit of debate we should follow the rules set by the instigator, criticizing me for not attacking his round two arguments with my round two arguments (which is clearly outlawed by the instigator) is not very sporting and is an outright misinterpretation of his own rules. This is likely an attempt to distract readers from my argument and its merits and cast doubt among readers as to the competency and validity of my arguments. Know this, my Burden of Proof is ONLY to prove that the Benefits of maintaining the status quo with regard to the current school day/homework model sufficiently outweigh the benefits of extending the school day and simultaneously decreasing homework assigned. I need not refute every one of pro’s arguments ( My arguments in Round Two were meant simply to show the merits of Homework and the potential consequences of adding time to the school day. With regard to Pro’s rebuttal of my arguments: Pro’s argument and rebuttal seems much more concerned with my inability to attack him and his policies than with stressing the merits of his own. Consider some of the guidelines written by Pro: Dropped arguments are not concessions. Logistics, on the school level, is not meant to be a crucial issue in this debate. The greatest overall good resulting from these policies is to be preferred when judging. School Day: Pro has attacked my evidence and claims regarding length of school day. He has stated several times that logistics are not the primary concern of this debate, yet he continues to retreat to the intricately laid-out School day model, supporting his claims and attacking mine by arguing logistics. It is not necessary to get bogged down in major details in this debate. Readers are challenged to consider the implications worldwide of imposing extra school hours, no matter how they are spent. On Pro’s rebuttal of my ‘Merits of Homework’ argument: Homework done at school IS NOT HOMEWORK, IT IS BY DEFINITION SHOOLWORK. It does not make sense for Pro to argue that we should reduce homework yet imply that homework can still be assigned as schoolwork. This is a waste of resources and is largely impractical. On that note, we will quickly address some additional arguments. Feasibility: School Systems in many parts of the world, including the United States of America, struggle to fund their departments and their staff as is. With a nominal increase of even one hour to the School Day, we would see Teachers laid-off because School Boards could not afford to maintain their already meager budgets with an increase of roughly 5 to 6 additional man-hours paid per employee. This would send hourly employees into overtime and would add additional unpaid work hours to salaried professors’ already gruesome worked hours vs. pay ratio. Teachers will become increasingly dis-satisfied with their work and will either voluntarily leave the workforce in favor of other jobs or will provide a lower standard of service to students or their performance will suffer because of the exhaustion of an increased workload on already poor salary. Also: More teachers cannot be hired because of budget constraints, which means that Pro’s argument regarding the benefit of School Teachers assisting with ‘homework’ (school work) means an unreasonable student/teacher ratio in most schools. (Not Plausible) It is my hope that readers will consider the simplicity of this debate. My burden of proof is not to disprove that school is good, it is only to prove that maintaining the status quo is better than making an unreasonable and less than pragmatic change. Homework offers benefits as does the school day at its current length. Neither need be changed.

No. You go to school to learn. Why waste the mind that God gave you. Got to school, graduate or get you GED and goo to college for chits and giggles. I believe it is a sin to waste the mingd God gave you and will take my own advice.

Should colleges be free, I think they should because then it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you can still have an education. Or just be free just for the 4 years of college.

Wait, I'm sorry. I thought you were against having to graduate. Didn't read it correctly. My bad.

From what I read, it seems like you are arguing the the banking system is indeed oppressive. I did not see anything boosting the value of the banking system. One more quote to support to oppression of the banking system from Hirsch. He talked about having background knowledge on the things we actually learn. His example was knowing the difference between two different words. You know how to identify the words based on things you know, but you have no other knowledge outside of that. You may know the big word but what is the power behind the word? We only know what we were taught. Anything learned outside of that seems very oppressive to me.


Question: Should Brawling be Permitted in Ice Hockey?

The practice of fighting in hockey should be prohibited.
Engaging in fights during ice hockey games is a frequent occurrence, yet there have been calls to put an end to it. Why is this the case? Primarily because it poses a significant risk. I acknowledge that fighting is indeed perilous and can potentially cause harm. However, it has been an integral part of the sport since its inception. Consequently, there is no justifiable rationale for banning fighting, as such a move would likely prove ineffective. In reality, it would only incite more controversy, as passionate fans might resort to brawling, leading to even more problematic situations.

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?

The topic says it all. No Rules. Go Nuts

Hmmmm.... 2 forfeits in a row.I will post a simple argument to prove my case, as it is getting less likely that Pro will come up with her own arguments.C.1 Two wrongs don't make a right.I'm sure you have heard of this popular saying. It is valid in this case.Just because your assaulter attacks you, does not give you the right to use deadly force in response. Responding with deadly force will not stop your assaulter from attacking, it will simply anger him further to attack you, so it solves nothing.Furthermore, responding with deadly force makes you wrong too. As a result, you can also be charged with assault. Therefore, it is not morally permissible, as two wrongs don't make a right and responding with deadly force simply lowers you to an assaulter as well.Hopefully Pro responds with arguments and a refutation.Otherwise, I win this debate.

Your response fails to adress the issue. Yor arguments are all of the ad populem falacy and presume unsupported premises. The law in the US permits it.

Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt.

Again, given they are different, Hockey is still at a more constant rate where that if your constantly sprinting on the ice for minutes at a time, you are clearly more tired as if you were consistently stopping and going on a 5-7 long drive down the the field. There is more stoppage time in a football drive, which usually is just a "3 and done" drive most of the time as opposed to hockey where your sprinting non stop until a goal is scored. As far as fundamentals are concerned, Hockey is more based on fundamentals then football is. For example, hockey involves skating. Skating is something not everyone can do, especially backwards. Being able to skate, skate well, and backwards are a huge part of hockey which separates a player from being good, and great. Stick and handling skills are also a lot more fundamentally harder then holding a football. Stick skills involve handling the puck well, passing the puck with accuracy, and being able to skate and shift the puck up the ice at the exact same time. Not to mention that while that puck is traveling on the ice, it does not come at you in a fluid, smooth motion. The ice is choppy due to the indentations of the skates from the players over a periods worth of time. The puck begins to bounce, jitter, and jump at you while it is either passed or deflected toward you. Being able to judge and catch that puck on your stick is much harder then catching a football which is thrown at you in a fluid, straight line pass.

Well this should be easy I suppose. .. . "I feel like I am loosing IQ points by even taking this challenge. "Then I must be doing SOMETHING right ;D"All throughout my opponents argument he forgets a fundamental principle. TV has censorship. This instantly shuts down this debate, because for it to continue he would have to either argueA: the Olympics should only be viewable to those who are over 18B: That sex should be allowed on tv shows and programs with no restriction of age. "Thats youre whole argument? Really? If censorship is that much of an issue then fine, we can make the Olympics a Pay Per View event, put it on HBO or Showtime, strategically put those little black bars over all the private parts, or it could simply be streamed live onto the internet where it would just join the mountains and mountains of other sex videos that exist all over the internet. .. . I dont see the point of bars though because I think we can all guess that under that big black bar is a big black rod. .. .. . But the point is, TV censorship is ridiculously easy to get around in this scenario and poses no challenge to making sex a televised Olympic sport. .. . "While it my increase tv ratings with the lazy, fat, single crowd. It will decrease it ratings in more educated homes. "And what evidence is there of that? I dont see why any intellectual wouldnt watch the Sex Olympics. .. . 'I say good chap, that man is really shticking his mongoose into that ladies well trimmed and well oiled badger repeatedly through a gyroscopial motion! ' - Intellectual. The sheer physics and mechanics of the sex making would be enough to catch the interest of intellectuals who I think we all know could probably use a lesson or two in sex. .. .. "His argument overall calls for Reformation of TV censorship, which will and can not happen due to federal regulations. "Oh yeah because tv censorship TOTALLY has never been changed over time or anything. .. . (Sarcasm)TV use to make it so that you couldnt say the word 'pregnant' on tv, now if you watch any episode of Law and Order SVU you hear something about someone shoving something into a vagina that doesnt go there! . http://www.neatorama.com...Con's arguments, much like his mother, falls flat on its back and just gets demolished. I extend ALL my arguments that con failed to address. :D

Just because hockey is played in the olympic games doesnt mean that football isnt popular. It isnt played the Olympic games because its an American sport and once again we have been arguing AMERICAN popularity. Also the Stanley Cup is televised just as much as the Superbowl but people just dont watch it as much. Have you considered this, that most of the people who play in the NHL are mostly from outside our country? Because of this, it shows that in the US not many people play hockey over football which is why the popularity is down in the US. Internationally hockey is way more popular than football but once again we are talking about the US. I myself am a hockey fan and enjoy the game because of its toughness and athletism it takes to play the game but to say that it is more popular than football isnt a fair judgement. As for the rule changes that the NFL has been coming too, the league is just trying to limit the amount of head injuries that are causing men to suffer alot of brain damage because of how physical the game of football is. Your right that it is a privelige to play in the NFL but why risk causing life threathing injuries over vicious hits that are completely illegal. To say that it is becoming a "touch football league" it is completely un-jusitfied because these head injuries shouldnt be nessessary and jeopardizing the lives of people. There are plenty of hard LEGAL hits in the NFL that show how physical of a game it is and always will be. Also, most of the rule changes in the NFL are just to protect the quarterback which i might say is something a little childish to the quarterbacks and favoring them a little bit but still doesnt take away from still being the most physical sport.

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.

Let's start off by defining some terms Bullying- According to {stopbullying.gov} , bullying is "unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. Allow- a. to admit as legal or acceptable; b. to give the necessary time or opportunity for So, this resolution, in other words, is to prove that aggressive action should be deemed acceptable. I will dissect my arguments into a few points. -Perspective- Bullying, in the eyes of the victim, is the actions against them personally, that can make them fell unwanted or unaccepted. This can lead to feelings of depression. [http://www.stopbullying.gov...] Bullying, in the eyes of the bully, is teasing or more serious annoying. To them, the victim is not affected, as most of the venting is done at home through crying from the victim. So, perhaps to the bully, things seem okay, and no one seems to be affected by the almost one-sided aggression. From a different perspective, bullying can seems like a totally different relationship. {P1} Builds character Personal Anecdote- Since I am a guy, I have seen 'bullying' more than girls probably have. Since boys playfully tease one another, we all know not to take it seriously. So, here's a series of events: (Verbal Bullying) Event 1: Bullying by peers When I was bullied in third grade, I never seemed to take it seriously. Fourth and fifth grade, the terms "gay" used a derogatory insult was thrown around like it was a competition. Event 2: Acceptance When these terms were tossed around, rather than feel offended, I just laughed. Perhaps some people were genuinely mean, but their words couldn't hurt me. Event 3: Resilience As the amount of insults increased, so did my age and my character. As a guy, I became accustomed to constant insults and belittling comments. Event 4: Progession and Growing Now that I am much older, I am much more thick-skinned. No barrage of comments can affect me, and I have, in effect, become impermeable to whatever people say to me. I have heard so many insults, but they no longer affect me because I am confident in myself, and know that others insult me because they are insecure of themselves. {Side-note to Con- Show confidence when you face your bullies. Let them know that what they say doesn't hurt you anymore. You are a strong, young person, and nothing they say affects you, because we all know how good of a person you are.} (That should not be counted as part of the debate.) {P2} Experience, Lesson Now that you understand my back-story, you know that I have experience. Since I faced comments and actions against me, I will not be shocked by them in the future. When others around me are rude, like classmates and co-workers, I will have experience how to deal with them. How would I deal with them? In a similar way my younger self dealt with his assailants. I will simply laugh and show that what they say does not affect me, because it doesn't. I am confident in myself and my abilities, and nothing they say can take that from me. Also, who are they to judge? They have their own flaws and faults, but by being the better person, I will not exploit those and reveal them to the world. {Side-note to Con- Since you have experienced bullying for a while, you have experience. Show those around you that you don't care what they say. By the way you told that story, I know you are a smart person, so don't let those who are dumb around you stop you from achieving your dreams. Stay strong!} {P3} Future You are/were a young kid when you got bullied, as was I. However, we must leave the past behind, and look ahead for the future. If children handled 'bullying' the way I did, which included verbal, mental, and sometimes physical aggression, they would become a stronger individual afterwards. Now, in the future of my bullying past, I can stand strong and poised, confident in myself, with the knowledge that what they say is untrue, and they are simply jealous of my better qualities, or insecure in their own. Now that I am older, the comments get worse, but my reaction does not change. I do not react. I am not weak, I am strong. I am not stupid, I am smart. I am not small, I am bigger than them. I am not worthless, I will make a difference in this world. It is not a crime to be different, I am unique. "They laugh at me because I am different, I laugh at them because they are all the same." {If you face bullying, that's what you should think. Be strong, Be confident!} In conclusion, bullying, whether physical, mental, emotional, or verbal, should be allowed. It gives kids experience and the opportunity to build self confidence. It teaches them to stand up for themselves, and trains their body and mind not to react to any actions against them. It gives them experience and strength to handle aggression when they're older, and more independent. I, like other victims, having endured bullying, can now stand poised, confident that nothing they say will affect them, and that no one can hurt them, now matter how hard they hit. We will stand strong and tall, without a fear in our minds. {Remember Con- Nothing they can say will hurt you. You are beautiful and smart, they are simply just jealous. Stay strong!} Thank you. http://www.stopbullying.gov... http://www.stopbullying.gov... https://www.google.com...


Question: Should Brawling be Permitted in Ice Hockey?

Should Brawling be Tolerated in Ice Hockey?

The debate over whether fighting should be permitted in hockey is contentious. Although physical contact is inherent to the sport, the deliberate staging and celebration of fights within the game raises ethical questions. A player being body-checked against the boards is indeed forceful, but it is not orchestrated like a fight. When players remove their helmets and gloves to engage in a fight, spectators of all ages are exposed to an aspect of the game that no longer aligns with contemporary societal norms. Aggressive tackles are inevitable in various sports, including hockey, football, and lacrosse, but such acts should not be glorified beyond their functional role. Hockey and its designated enforcers send a detrimental message to young fans and players aspiring to emulate professional athletes. Instead of honing their skills to become proficient hockey players, some children might aspire to be the ones delivering "big hits" and known for their physical prowess, rather than cultivating valuable skills within the sport. This glorification of violence raises ethical issues, as it skews the perspective and gameplay of young athletes. Physical aggression is not an acceptable means of resolving disputes, even in a physically demanding sport. The principles of sportsmanship and playing the game ethically are jeopardized by the inclusion of fighting in hockey.

"Your points are flawed,unethical or outright subjective"Ethics is relative to the individual. Ethics is not absolute so it is only unethical according to the ethics you subscribe to. Everything from a person's perspective is subjective because "perception is reality.""Organized crime groups to kill people legally by extortion (i.e. forcing someone to duel or the crime group would kill someone close to the duelist). "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?"No way, shape, or form should killing be legalized because this always leaves a loophole to be taken advantage of."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. 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."Gun matches everywhere"Duels have never took place everywhere as Con states.Normally there were grounds for dueling.For example, there were dueling grounds right outside of Washington DC[1].Duels are not going to be happening like in the movies where it is sundown and duelists are shooting it out in the street.That is purely fictitious. Duels have taken place far away from the general populace.[1]http://www.roadsideamerica.com..."Not everyone would believe this."People against dueling and gladiating must acknowledge such events are great due to the intensity of said events[2].Great:"full of emotion."[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com..."Many duels would happen between the two families "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. Vendetta:"Very long and violent fight between two families or groups"[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...“Character”People affected by the legalization of dueling would be affected only."Justify murder"Murder is an illegal action[4].Once dueling is legalized,it is no longer murder.Murder: “the crime of deliberately killing a person”[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...I will respond to the rest of "Con's thoughts" next round.

Let me sum up my points:1. Consensual AgreementThis point stands as is.2. No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight. This point stands as is. Con tried to make the claim that dueling was happening everywhere. I refuted this in Round 3.3. Weapons are agreed upon. This point stands as is. Con has used appeal to fear to make it seem that in duels someone has to die or would be harmed beyond belief. I said in Round 2,weapons are up to the participants exclusively. They can use non-injurious weapons if they wish.4. It is a Great Event. Con tried to make the claim that some would believe it is not a great event. I refuted this in Round 3 because by definition dueling must be a great event. 5. An End to Grudges. This point stands as is. 6. Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)This point stands as is. My opponent didn't even address this at all.7. Builds Character. This point stands as is. Con was concerned if the general American populace benefited from dueling. To which I replied no.8. LoopholesCon was fixated on theoretical loopholes in the legalization of dueling. I dismissed them because they were non-existent historically. Dueling has existed historically so shouldn't loopholes been exploited? Possibly,but my opponent didn't offer any examples.9. VendettasI refuted the claim that duels would lead to vendettas among families. The evidence was inconsequential and will continue to be as such if dueling was legalized.10. MoralityMy opponent has tried multiple in this opinion to demonize and shame the act of dueling. But I simply retorted in Round 2:"Ethics is relative to the individual. Ethics is not absolute so it is only unethical according to the ethics you subscribe to. "Let us all not be subject to the morals of Con. 11. Con has only offered opinion. "My's Thoughts" was exactly what Con determined to call it,and it was exclusively his thoughts only. Con has also offered many fallacies in this debate to back his opinions. Throughout the debate he used appeal to emotion multiple times. He used terms like "unethical," "exploiting," and "regressive" with no evidence to back such adjectives. Con also used appeal to fear as well stating "unnecessary deaths. "Con did not offer one iota of evidence for any of his statements. If he offers evidence this round he forfeits the debate entirely(See Round 1 debate structure). Voters,should we accept such conjecture in a debate on something that was once legal? Shouldn't evidence be presented based off of previous details on the art of dueling? Con has offered his distaste for dueling very clearly but there is nothing to back that distaste.12. Con disregarded the debate structure. Round 2 was supposed to be opening arguments only. Instead he offered no presentation of arguments whatsoever. Con asked questions and provided a rebuttal. He should lose his conduct points. Many thanks to my opponent for participating in this debate.

Most people think that animal hunting is hurting the environment and should be banned. I believe that hunting should not be banned. A lot of people believe that people hunting animals for food will eventually cause extinction of our animals however, there are strict laws for hunters and how many animals they are allowed to take. Hunting goes way back in history. A few thousand years ago, hunting was the only way we knew. It was one of the only thing we could do to survive. Today, hunting is considered a sport. Hunters still need to eat and some of them hunt because they would rather harvest their own venison rather then buying it from the store. Some hunters prefer the taste of wild game then animals who have been raised on a farm and feed steroids and other chemicals. Other people simply may not be able to afford to buy meat from the store, therefore they fend for themselves by hunting. Hunting is often considered a tradition and is passed down from generation to generation.

I was really hoping that I could go an entire debate without my opponent forfeiting, but I continue my stance that the Instigator should always set the ground for a debate. I hope any voters look upon this debate and see who actually put the most effort into debating. Thank you

Keep in mind that my opponent must successfully argue that steroids should be banned entirely (from sports) to win this debate. =======Counter Arguments======= -----Unhealthy for the Body-----Con's first argument for why steroids should be banned is that steroids are unhealthy. Con is going to have to outline in what way and to what extent they are unhealthy because I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but more importantly, being unhealthy is not enough to get something banned, especially from ALL sports. If that where the case, then French-fries or smoking would also be banned. Given this, it's clear that something being "unhealthy" is not enough of an argument on its own to be persuasive of Con's case. -----Breaking the Rules-----Con points out that, in competitions that ban steroids, using steroids gives the player an unfair advantage. This is true, but this isn't actually an argument for why they should be banned, all Con is saying here is that if steroids are already banned then using steroids gives an unfair advantage. Furthermore, there are specific leagues in certain sports specifically designed for the purpose of allowing steroid-users to compete. Consider power lifting, for example. In power lifting there are "drug tested" divisions and "non-drug-tested" divisions [1]. Obviously, the steroid users gravitate towards the non-tested divisions. These divisions can't come out and say "steroid division" given the legal standing of steroids in the U. S. currently, but within power lifting circles it is understood that these are the leagues meant for those on steroids. In such a case as this, banning steroids wouldn't make any sense as the whole point of that division is to give drug users a league to compete in. In this case, the drug use in entirely voluntary and no one is getting an unfair advantage, undermining Con's complaint. =======The Case for the Juice=======Up until now I have been counters Con's opening arguments. I will now present my case for why steroids should be allowed 9at least some of the time) and why they are not as harmful as most think. -----Steroid Safety-----Steroids are not nearly as dangerous as they are made out to be. In recent decades, steroid quality has increased and cycle methods have become perfected -- with all the necessary information available online, even for free in some cases [3][4]. We are now at the point where one needn't suffer any adverse side-effects from their steroid cycle so long as they are willing to do the necessary research. Furthermore, there is virtually no real scientific evidence backing up the dangers most people associate with steroid use:"In fact, Dr. Fost claims very few studies have been done to say that steroids are bad and not one single test definitely links steroids to all the problems that people claim it does to the body. "The so-called risks of steroids are wildly exaggerated, and often just made up," said Dr. Fost. " [2]The real dangers of steroids aren't due to the steroids themselves, but due to uneducated people (mostly young teens) who don't know how to properly cycle their drugs. -----The Turn-----Banning steroids from all sports won't stop steroid use. This much is incontestable. However, what Con fails to realize is that banning steroids entirely will actually result in more steroid-related deaths. There are two main ways of taking steroids; orally and via injection. Oral steroids are the original steroids, they are also the least healthy. They have a high toxicity and are generally much harder on your liver than injection-based steroids since they have to work through your digestive system in order to hit your bloodstream. The issue is that when you inject steroids, the drugs stay in your system longer, which means it's easier to fail a drug test. Given this, many athletes resort to taking oral steroids despite the enormous increase in health risks. The solution to this problem is, as I've touched on earlier, to allow for steroid divisions à la power lifting. This way, steroid users can get the performance benefits of using steroids without needlessly risking their health, and natural athletes can compete in a drug-free division. There's no need to completely ban steroids. =======Conclusion=======Con's arguments for banning steroids from all sports don't hold up. The first of Con's arguments, health reasons, is not enough to justify his resolution even if it were true and his second argument is a non-sequitur. Furthermore, I've shown that steroids are not as dangerous as they are made out to be, that banning steroids will actually make the problem worse and I've presented a superior alternative to Con's given solution. 1. . http://www.criticalbench.com...2. . http://www.todaystmj4.com... 3. . http://www.elitefitness.com...4. . http://tnation.t-nation.com... 5. . http://www.billdobbins.com...

Thanks to Pro for his...rather short...argument. I will point out that Pro has not addressed his BoP, so everything he has claimed is invalid. That being said, this argument will hardly need much content to win. What Exactly is the "Best Sport?" Here is the definition of best: Best: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing[1] Here is the definition of sport: Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.[2] From these definitions, it can be concluded that the "best sport" is the one that requires more skill and physical prowess than the others. However, it is virtually impossible to compare different sports due to their diverse gameplay, equipment, and setting for playing. Therefore, there is no "best sport," and people who do claim that it is are prejudiced since they don't have evidence that their sport (or hockey in this case) has the highest requirement of skill or physical prowess. Pro has failed to provide evidence for this, and his entire argument is heavily opinionated. In addition, he failed to accept full BoP. The outcome of this debate favors Con. Sources [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

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.

My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating "game" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of "cleaning" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he "naturally" had 40"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has "given my blood the legal "boost" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. "25 There is one way to boost an athlete"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. "By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. " There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.

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...

Time got away from me, this round will be short.Observe:I. The purpose of this debate is not to assess whether or not dueling is good, but rather if it should be legal. II. We can only assess what should/should not be legal when operating a under a compelling framework that provides proper justification for the existence of the state. For this reason, my main contention will be that dueling should be legal because states exist to protect rights. The only justifiable role of the State is to protect the rights of it's people. Give the State the arbitrary authority to revoke rights and harm its people, and you've destroyed it's purpose in the name of some mythical goals. 1. Dueling is a rightThe consenual and contractual engagement in a fight with established rules falls under the scope of voluntary relations. The only people harmed in a duel are the participants themselves (compare this to street or gang fights, which often destroy innocent bystanders or at the very least create a public disturbance), and as long as the property owner consents to have the duel take place on his property, there are absolutely no rights violated. My opponent must somehow prove that rights come from the collective, or society (a tall order since it is overwhelmingly self evident that rights belong to individuals, who can use them as they please if they dont harm others), otherwise his entire position is illogical because the prevention of dueling would thus be a violation. Without even specifying any advantages I can already claim victory in the debate since rights should be protected.Advantage one: Legitimitizing dueling could cut down on other acts of violenceOftentimes people want to engage in physical combat with one another--that is obvious. Unfortunately, these kinds of barbaric and unruly fights can harm innocent bystanders who get caught up in the way. These brawls usually take place on public property, damaging it and forcing the collective taxpayers to pay for the cleanup (blood all over the streets at the least). There are no spoken rules, guns, knives, or allies may be invoked at any time with no immediate reprecussion such as forfeiture of the fight, often escalating what was supposed to be a 1 on 1 battle to a small gang war. Moreover, since there is a set of "unspoken rules" that if violated by the winning party will encourage the losing party to seek vengeance for supposed "cheating" on the part of the winners, potentially leading to destructive gang warfare. The crips and the bloods have claimed over 15,000 lives in their famous fued[1]. I am not foolish enough to believe that the effect will be very large, but large scale legalization of dueling will generate publicity and make the more honorable sort of street fighters see a way out of the wide scale violence that can occur from street brawls. If even one innocent life could concievable be saved, you affirm. Advantage two: Promotes a sense of honor. Mcgrath compares fights in the "wild" west with today[2]:" the men involved were both young, healthy, armed, and willing .... Yes, men (and some women) went about armed and male combatants killed each other, mostly in fights where there were somewhat "even chances." On the other hand, the young, the old, the female, and those who chose not to drink in saloons and display reckless bravado were rarely the victims of crime or violence. Moreover, dirty, low-down scoundrels got their just dessert" While these were also not formal duels, they came out of a time period where formal dueling (even if illegal) was widespread and considered an honorable method to settle conflicts. This sense of honor, held by virtually all people, would not, for instance, permit the destruction of innocent life, forced intercourse with women, or theft, things all extremely widespread in todays degenerated society. McGrath goes further, comparing two frontier towns with modern cities:"The United States as a whole averages three times as much robbery per capita as Bodie and Aurora. Burglary and theft were also of infrequent occurrence in the mining towns. Most American cities today average 30 or 40 times as much burglary and theft per capita as Bodie and Aurora. The national rate is ten times higher .... There were no reported cases of rape in either Aurora or Bodie .... Today, a rape occurs every five minutes"And these towns, back when society was held together by a prevailing sense of honor, were among the lowest and most lawless places in the entire United States (hence the name wild west). Again, note that I do not believe that the legalization of dueling is the only thing we must do to regain our lost honor, but it is a step in the right direction.Advantage three: Supports governments proper purposeAs previously explained, the purpose of the government is to protect rights, not take them away. Hoppe sums it up nicely when he explains the progression of the United States federal government over the centuries[3]:"Two-hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40% of the incomes of private producers, making even the burden on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and Silver have been replaced by government manufactured paper...the meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid...every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and reregulated by ever higher mountais of paper laws...the committment to free trade and non-intervensionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism." We have lost our way under a government that fails to protect the rights of its citizens. The way forward to true progress is not more government, but less. The government must recognize that its duties do not include babying its citizens, but rather creating an environment where they can make their own choices and suffer their own consequences. Vote Pro. Sources:1. http://www.pbs.org...;2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 34. Print.3. Ibid, 278-279


Question: Should Brawling be Permitted in Ice Hockey?

Should Fighting be Permitted in Hockey Games?
The NBA's strategy of imposing fines as a means of disciplining its players may be effective due to the absence of alternative historical conflict resolution methods. In contrast, hockey has long incorporated fighting as an essential component of the sport since the inception of the National Hockey League. It's not as if these brawls are entirely unregulated. In the 1980s, the average number of fights per NHL game was one (100%). In response to this, the league introduced new rules to govern fighting. While still allowing fights to occur, these regulations imposed a 2-5 minute penalty on the participants, prompting players to exercise caution when deciding to engage in a fight. This is akin to the penalty systems in other sports: soccer players are more cautious about aggressive plays after receiving a yellow card, and NBA athletes are more mindful of their actions after accruing three fouls. Moreover, if the debate about fighting is rooted in concern for the players' welfare, their perspectives should be taken into account. A 2012 survey of NHL players revealed that 98% of them believed fighting should remain a part of the NHL. This indicates that the players themselves, who are fully aware of the associated risks, still find value in the practice and wish for it to continue.

Swearing is allowed (Just don't go overboard with it (Just don't go like "F**kudy, f**k, f**k. I f**k you right in the c**t. ") because that might make you're argument a little less stable and/or compelling) Also make you're argument logical So yeah lets have a good rap battle/debate

When we argue the concept of dodgeball we must think about it nationwide, several years ago in our nation it took place every day in schools across the country. The concern it presents now is that this is an aggressive sport that you aren't penalized for trying to "out" the other player. This raises concerns of bullies being able to take out their aggression on a fellow class mates. Various kids ganging up on one other child can cause them to feel like a target in school.

Your dispute to my statement of more fans is that the NHL has crazier fans. I believe your intention was to link the Vancouver riots, as evidence for "crazier fans." While that was a crazy thing, that has only ever happened once and doesnt really set the bar for a consistent crazy fan base. Also, it's kind of hard to define crazy, and label such large groups crazier than one another. The NFL fans are fairly "crazy" as well. There is a fantasy football group called the tattoo league. The loser every year gets a tattoo of the winners choice. They gained quite the amount of publicity even earning them a spot on ESPN Sunday Countdown. [1]. Every year Americans put down millions upon millions over fantasy football. [2]. These are some fairly crazy statistics and stories that don't have many equivilents in the NHL fanbase. Finally you addressed how difficult it is make it into the NHL. According to NCAA, the percentages for the NFL and NHL are fairly similar. [3]. About .07% of high school seniors participating in inner scholastic sports will make it to the NHL, and the percentage is .08 for making it to the NFL. The NHL has less players and less openings, the NFL has more players and more openings. They are relative to each other showing it's basically just as difficult to enter each one as it is the other. But, the average length of a career of an NHL player is 5.5 years versus NFL players who average 3.5. [4]. Let's take David Tyree for example who had arguably the greatest catch in NFL history. He caught a 4th and 10 pass from Eli Manning with his helmet while double covered to keep the Giants alive and eventually pull off the greatest upset in Super Bowl history. This was an iconic moment in NFL history, spoiling the Patriots 19-0 season. That was David Tyree's last catch ever in the NFL. It doesn't matter what you've done or accomplished, even an amazing catch like that, the NFL has so many people circulating in and out, even David Tyree couldn't manage it. Thank you for the debate, despite me being the Con, I still think hockey is a super tough game that is really fun to watch and deserves more fans than it has. [1. http://youtu.be...] [2. http://www.forbes.com...]. [3. https://www.ncaa.org...]. [4. http://www.rsvlts.com...].

Thanks for your response, Pro. As for your videos, it is the animals nature to attack an enemy to prevent another attack. Enemy: http://dictionary.reference.com... Rebuttal 1: Regarding the use of "adult animals" First, I'd like for you to notice that adult animals are not the only animals being used in rodeo. For example, Calf Roping [2]. Most bucking horses used in rodeo are between the ages of two and six, which although full grown, are by all accounts mentally immature. An injury or particularly traumatic event happening before the horse is mature can scar them and remove their chances of moving on to a different equine sport (Dressage, Stadium Jumping, Barrel Racing, etc.). A horse that cannot do anything because an incident in the past has made them dangerous is often sent to slaughter. Argument extended. Rebuttal 2: Regarding the use of whips In a typical ranching situation, like you mentioned, the goal is to slowly and gently move the animals forward to a marked spot [2]. In the case of rodeo, the goal is to get the animals to quickly and erratically move forward, a rancher's nightmare. Also, if they must use whips, tazers, etc, the animal would rather stand still, and are not in fact "Born to Buck" [3]. Rebuttal 3: The difference between movies and rodeos is that one has special effects, and is preformed by rationally thinking people, and one isn't. This renders your comparison unreliable. Rebuttal 4: Regarding rodeos being successful economically Yes, rodeos attract lots of spectators and fans, but so do drug dealers and prostitutes. Your mindset is a potentially dangerous one with that kind of mindset. Regarding the quotation: The main difference between Thomas Edison's testing and rodeo is that one saved lives. Rodeo serves no purpose in humanity. [4] [1] Calf roping http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Cattle Herding http://www.grandin.com... [3] "Born to Buck" http://www.flyingurodeo.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...

Your response fails to adress the issue. Yor arguments are all of the ad populem falacy and presume unsupported premises. The law in the US permits it.

So I wanted to include some info on how curling is for retards and janitors and back it up with some evidence. So here you go https://www.facebook.com... https://sportcultures.wordpress.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... https://ca.askmen.com... The first lesson that hits you is: Curling sucks. This is stupid. And if you like curling you're either: A.) Trolling. Or B.) Scottish. Because even though Scotland gave us the guy who invented Buicks, we also have to endure their lame ice sport and the overblown coverage its quirkiness encourages. Even though it's presence is almost non-existent, seeing it at all is still a real kick in our big American schlongs. Memorably described to me once as "a mixture of lawn bowls and housework", curling is one of those sports that if you don't play it, you don't get it. I'm sure its exponents have fun pushing a rock along the ice and then sweeping around it, but for spectators its eye-wateringly boring For retards this is a great sport as it doesn't require a lot of talent, you just have to slide down the ice, and janitors are already used to sweeping floors and mopping floors so the arm movement is essentially the same, therefore they are a shoe in for this activity.

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...

what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that

Pepper sprayed Mr.Pib. This is deja vu. What is really real? Are my wubs that I listen to real? Well onto the topic. The Hockey player needs to remain sober long enough for my kidneys to be removed and donated. If the same force is pulled for armpit hair, does that same force of pulling of the other hair make me different then what might not be the hockey player of my dreams. The kidneys eat the hanmbarters and queve it. Put me in a sword, and cut me first. Can't spell weird without I before e except after c. Easy easy easy. No one will send prescon. You know what I want. Not that. All right, no? Read my words lowly as I am thinking hear..Slow it down. A calm voice should be used ok? I am calm. I readed you wrong I think. What does 0x mean? 0X bam ba bam ba bam ba bam ba ba bam Almost like fimpong but "bemp ooow" 0X YA YA..MA Oh here we go. Shots fired! Still pulling on that hair, cuz I'm a heathen. Drink bleach and take me! Its still not clever or my place.

i agree with your point that you need to wear just as much pads as football players and that you need to change directions in a blink of an eye. My argument is that with all of the padding that a football has, you must have the endurance and stamina to keep and also with the change of direction football is a tough sport to deal with. Im not refuting that hockey doesnt have alot of padding as well as football does because they do. But in your previous argument you were refuting that endurance and stamina is tougher in hockey than football and thats not the case. Now to popularity, i understand that hockey is very popular internationally but we are talking about AMERICA. We are in the United States and talking about AMERICAN sports. If we were in Canada or Russia were hockey is there national pastime then sure hockey is way more popular than football but we arent. This past Super Bowl there was an average of 111.3 million people who watched the superbowl and the past Stanley Cup had an average of 2.88 million viewers. You do the math