Question: Should There Be an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage?

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would be beneficial for the US economy. In the second round, my opponent made several points, including accusing the U.S. Federal Reserve of manipulating inflation to benefit the economy. She also accused this federal organization of "cooking the books" to make the reported numbers look good to the American people. This second specific point is an allegation of a wild conspiracy and I consider it irrelevant to the debate; however, she does use this argument to indicate that inflation is actually higher than what is reported, because of alterations to the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is computed since the early 1970s. (My opponent is actually wrong. Excluding the prices of fuel and food from the CPI has been the way the U.S. Federal Reserve has been computing this parameter for decades now--not beginning in 2009, as she claims.) I want to point out that if inflation is actually higher than what the U.S. Federal Reserve is reporting, then this should motivate us even more to hike the minimum wage and index it to inflation! This means that the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is even less than what the U.S. Labor Department is already reporting--and it's reporting a significant decrease in the value of the minimum wage over the last four decades in real terms with great worry. (However, the inflation rate as reported is accurate; my opponent is in fact mistaken about the way the CPI is traditionally computed since the 1970s.)

My opponent also claims that worker output should decide "pay scales in a real economy". I will demonstrate why she's correct, and why the 20% increase in worker productivity observed over this last decade should correspond with an increase in the federal minimum wage. I will demonstrate this and other reasons for hiking the federal minimum wage in this round.

Inflation has many causes, which is why the Federal Minimum Wage should be Indexed to Inflation. My opponent argues that raising the federal minimum wage would be pointless, as inflation would eventually eat the gains caused by increasing the minimum wage. And on this point, she is moderately right; however, inflation has many causes, as economists point out, and it's a healthy economic trend in any growing economy--as long as it stays within limits. Inflation is caused when demand for a product or service outstrips supply, which causes prices to go up; it can also be caused when new popular technology is introduced--some brand names demand

Higher salary does not equals harder work. Some of the hardest jobs implicate lower salary. Most of the high payed persons in the companies are having easy working places that beside good position often gives additional benefits and bonuses. Capitalism is a system where "hard work" is not in proportion with "high salary" and therefore the negative income tax-model will not penalize the hard working persons, but under contrary it will put balance between hard-working people with lower salary, and persons who are receiving their income on "easy" way, trough company profits, shares and other benefits.

Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being. Increased private sector influence and less public jobs and industries will reduce the sharing of wealth.

It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. ...

"Progressive taxation is not the same as 'spread the wealth.'". The Right Wing Professor. 26 Oct. 2008 - "Our federal government spends roughly $3 TRILLION a year and the population is roughly 300 million, which works out to $10,000 per person per year. With a median family in the US earning around $50,000/year and having 3 members, it is clear that this family can't afford to pay its "fair share" of $30,000/year in taxes. Without a drastic slashing of the federal budget, we are forced into a progressive tax system, where by progressive I simply mean the wealthy pay more in taxes than the not so wealthy."

University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.

Unfortunately, too many people nowdays in America think socialism, (which is but an eventual path to full tyranny and communism), is the answer to America's (and the world's) woes. These systems of government have resulted in the enslavement and deaths of millions upon millions of people. (Think Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other despots). The reason these systems eventually fail is that too much power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, who impose more and more rrules and regulations, taxes and other types of oppressive control over the masses, all for "the greater good" which is held out there like a carrot, never to be achieved. The "greater good" can never be acheived - what we gain instead for the "masses" is a leveled-down collection of enslaved, miserable and poverty-stricken individuals lorded over by a few arrogant, wealthy and power-hungry elites. Using Sweden as an example of a "successful" socialist country, as many who argue for socialism do, we see an example of the failure of socialsim. If people bothered to check the facts, they would find out that if the whole country of Sweden were made part of the United States, it would be the POOREST state in the nation! Socialsim in Sweden is failing, with its high taxes and resultant high unemployment, it is reaching the point of unsustainability. I offer the following article (source is at the end of the article) for those who beleive in socialism to ponder. Socialism Works! - or does it? "Socialism has worked for the world - and now it can work for you!" Sweden: "The Highest Standard of Living Anywhere" The beautiful nation of Sweden has the highest standard of living in the world. Its blossoming industry ranks far higher than the United States in most measurements. Life in Socialist Sweden is free of homeless, reckless, crazy people. In spite of the 55% income tax, Sweden has a history of strong family values, the most progressive education system in the world and extremely low unemployment. Sweden boasts a new Third Way between Capitalism and Socialism, making it a great example of new age Collectivism. It's superior unionization and strong economy will ensure that it will be a Socialistic success story for years to come. If you say Sweden, I say "Socialism WORKS!" But does it really work? the highest standard of living: Sweden's most affront claim, that it has the world's highest standard of living, is often based on the measure of equality in wealth redistribution, and not on the status of the national economy, the buying power of the Swedish crown (Krona), the amount of people working for productive aims or creating innovations, nor it's Gross National Product. Claims based on these other properties of the Swedish economy, in support of their "highest standard of living" claim, are mysteriously non-existent. blossoming industry: Sweden is a great place to start a new business - if you don't plan on being successful. A more lax economic policy in the '90s has increased new startups by 25%, but the economic attitude towards business hasn't changed much since the '70s, where entrepreneurs were treated like pariahs. Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad told Forbes magazine that the Swedish tax bureaucrats would frequently accuse him of using people and "only wanting profits". ranks far higher than the United States in most measurements: The Swedish Institute of Trade reported in 2002 that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households". If Sweden were introduced to the U.S. as a new state, it would rank as the poorest according to these standards. This is in light of the fact that these numbers are gross values - before taxes - and Sweden has the highest taxes in the world. The same report also shows that Swedes fare lower than the lowest American socio-economic class, working-class black males. free of homeless, reckless, crazy people: The unfortunate in Sweden often don't roam the streets aimlessly, in fact, few are often found. That's because the state subsidizes them to live in optimal conditions and to provide little work - and if they are put into labor, it's in a public enterprise run by the government, to help reduce the official share of unemployed people. Workers can earn up to 570 paid days off a year (that's no typo - we know there are only 365 days a year - Swedes can earn more paid days off than days they actually work). So where are the poor, crazy, reckless people of Sweden? Living off Swedish tax money and taking up their inequitable residence in Swedish neighborhoods, and growing in numbers since the financial prosperity of the cradle-to-grave system doesn't discourage their lacklazy habits. They are often joined by productive Swedish citizens who simply take time off, after "earning" years of unemployment benefits. These categories, since they are subsidized, are not officially considered "unemployed" in most Swedish statistics, even though both demographics do no actual work. After making the observation that loons don't wander the streets of Sweden, P.J. O'Rourke commented in his book "Eat the Rich" - "The last time I walked through Gamla Stan, I didn't wonder where the crazy people were. In Sweden the craziness is redistributed fairly. They're all a little crazy." 55% income tax: This income tax, 55% of the Gross National Product, the highest income tax in the world, is also coupled with sales taxes, property taxes, and other excise taxes and tariffs. The Swedish sales tax, a "value added tax", ranges to 22.5% of items sold, on various goods including most foods. The total ownership of public goods by the Swedish government is roughly 64%, closing in on 70%, once you include all these other forms of taxation. That is not including government-owned means of production, which control about a full quarter of Swedish productivity. history of strong family values: The history of Swedish domestic relations is chock full of civil rights abuses. 62,000 Swedes were forcibly sterilized by the Swedish government over a 40 year period, until 1974, by government researchers who judged families as being "racially inferior". These sterilizations included both the parents and their children. During this time period, a Swedish Television documentary revealed that Sweden lobotomized at least 500 "undesirables", in some cases without the consent of their families, and that lobotomizations may have numbered up to 4,500 people. These practices predated and surpassed the era of Nazi Germany. the most progressive education system in the world: Education is universally free in Sweden, and like other free government-sponsored systems, it's on the verge of financial collapse and decay. Per student Sweden pays an average of $7,000 a year, while the 9 years of elementary schooling is required, high school and further education is not. Students receive financial benefits for continuing to high school, in the form of about $100 a month, although by college most people have got weaned on the Swedish unemployment system. Some High School students teach Elementary school, while Colleges teach what Swedish High Schools did 15 years ago, showing the recent decline in the quality of Swedish education. To solve unemployment figures, many unemployed people are forced into menial courses to change their status from "unemployed" to "student", illustrating the general sense of misuse of the Swedish education system. extremely low unemployment: Sweden, like other Socialist nations, use methods to "hide" unemployment figures from staticians, reflecting a "strong economy". Most people on the government dole are changed in status to not be considered "unemployed", for instance, out of work citizens are often considered "on paid leave", or given a menial class and considered "students", or simply conscripted into public works programs funded by the government and given menial labor there. The government's ability to fund the unemployed hides unemployment numbers, giving Sweden years of having unemployment numbers like 2%. This, like other Socialist nations of it's ilk, does not reflect the real life numbers of regularly working people. Third Way: Swedes often argue that their system is not Socialism, since only a fourth of the Swedish main lines of production are owned by the government. However, this is in light of the government owning 70% of the Swedish Gross National Product, and controlling the direction of industry through heavy regulation. By mandating who can provide what products and services, and controlling media, education and public utilities, Sweden definitely has found a "Third Way" between Capitalism and Socialism - that way, of course, being to fake Capitalism, where the Socialist goals of redistribution of wealth and products are realized without calling most industry "publicly owned". This same trick of a "Mixed Economy" is used by Socialist economists all around the world to help give government progressive control over trade. The lesson of the Third Way? Free trade is not free just because someone calls it "free". superior unionization: Unions in Sweden have become hyper organized, and government involvement is obscure and questionable. Super-union organizations like the LO have official affiliations with the Social Democratic Party, and work closely with the authorities to push domestic reform provisions they feel are "in the interest of the workers". strong economy: While the government spent 70% of the Swedish Gross National Product in the '90s, for 4 years the national debt doubled and for 3 years the nation experienced negative financial growth. Socialistic success story: Whether the massive welfare state of Sweden with it's cradle-to-grave public aid, ultra-high taxation, and dishonest economic policies is considered a success is something we'll leave entirely up to the reader. « Go back to Socialism WORKS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- « back to PAOracle.com

The driving age should not be raised to 18 because driving takes training and sitting on your butt for two more years is not going to put any more expirence in you. No matter what age you start driving, you will be inexperience. So you minds well start out at 16 where you are still in high school and are not going to college or start working. I'll gradutate high school at 17, so it would be nice to have a license before I graduate, so I dont have to worry about learning how to drive and take the test, when I am on my own. Plus, the only way to know how to drive in the winter, know the speed limit, where pot holes are, and how to handle sharp turns is to get out on the road and drive.

We agree it is a pity when one goes bankrupt. Unfortunately, the economy has upswings and downturns. It is important in the downturn, when the money is scarce, we spend it efficiently. Recessions kill inefficient business and if a small grocery store goes bankrupt, it means it was not good enough and others are better at providing food. The owner initially loses, because he has to look for a new occupation, but he would find one he’s better at. In downturns people are more careful at spending their income, so they favour cheaper shops. Laws of supply and demand work, but in terms of industries, not a particular retailer. The demand for bread from a particular retailer goes up, but not the demand for bread in general. If one retailer sets his prices high, we purchase from others. If all of them raise prices, a new player comes in and sells the same for less. The competition is open and anybody can enter the contract. Laws of supply and demand and competition imply there are no abnormal profits and too high prices. It doesn’t matter if it’s the government or individuals who spend money on bread. The bread is purchased, it has been produced, adds to the GDP, the money is in the economy. Money is created not by a transaction and its type, but when goods are produced. Besides, big companies use the money to expand and hire workers. Money is still spent and “double benefit” made. Abuse of the system is still there. Failing a job interview purposely is easy and hard to prove, yet technically going to an interview is looking for job, regardless of performance. According to newest available source from Canada 10% of unemployed people there are chronically unemployed and account for 30% of accumulated unemployment (when calculated in days) [1]. We also need to keep the recession in mind here. Hardworking people will not suffer much anyway, because they will get a job fast. Also they usually have their own savings to spend. [1] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-


Question: Should There Be an Increment in the Federal Minimum Wage?

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will have a positive impact on the U.S. economy
Advocating for an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, I will demonstrate why such a move is necessary and beneficial for the U.S. economy. This hike would increase the number of jobs and boost the nation's gross domestic product, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office [1]. Moreover, it would primarily benefit low-wage workers, including those earning minimum wage or less, up to about five times the poverty threshold [1]. For instance, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit those making this new minimum wage and also aid a single working person earning up to $68,825 per year, putting more money in their pocket [1][2]. Larger working families would see even greater financial gains [1].

The need for a minimum wage increase is critical, as the purchasing power of wages for the majority of America's workforce has stagnated or decreased over the past 30 years due to inflation [3][4]. Low-wage earners have been hit the hardest, with the value of their wages declining significantly. In contrast, the top 1% of earners have seen their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, well above the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. The top 1% now receive 22.5% of all pre-tax income, while the bottom 90% get less than half [5]. The federal minimum wage has fallen behind inflation in real terms for the last 40 years. Studies by the U.S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, when adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is lower than it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars [5][7][8]. Since the last increase to $7.25 in 2009, the minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing power due to inflation [7]. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since its inception in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. In 1968, a

Maturity should firstly be defined. Maturity in regards to aging is a natural process, which everyone hopefully endures. However, maturity is also the development of the mind. Minds differ and decisions in regards to each individual life differ. Legality cannot be measured via maturity, thusly the age of majority should not be in existence. As it is, it is flawed, though. Lowering the age to 16 would not be beneficial legally and would cause difficulties in the current system. <<< A sign of maturity is to see a problem for the whole thing and not just the small part that upsets you. The whole picture here is a process. What do 18 year olds get to do that 16 year olds can not? Well, for one, they can gamble. They can also buy cigs. Cool, so you want to do one of those? Well any adult 18+ has to go through a process of getting their ID checked for legal age. With what your suggesting there would need to be some kind of way to identify maturity. The only way i can think of is to have a Maturity Test and give people Maturity Cards. The biggest problem is that one might know what is mature but doesn't follow it. Therefore, they could pass the test but doesn't mean they obey what thew wrote off on. Or if its an adult that goes somewhere to say "yes my kid is mature"... well i bet 80% of immature children would have parents who write them off as mature anyways. And now we're also asking stores (that seem to have problems asking for ID) requiring to ask for Maturity Cards. The whole process is beyond faulty, easy to scam and just more complicated than what its worth. Big deal, you have to wait two more years to buy cigs which you can't smoke in school and need a job to support you unhealthy habbit. Or you have to wait 2 years to blow all the petty cash you're making at your min. wage job at a casino. All to create a complicated, easily corrupted system? This does not make sense

James L. Payne, author of a 1991 book "The Culture of Spending", says: "What goes on is a socialization process: a nicer way of saying indoctrination. One is surrounded by people who have a biased reason for arguing that federal spending is good, necessary, wise and proper. There’s no reason for anyone to enter this process if he believes it’s unwise or unethical.”[4]

Income tax creates a situation in which everyone is effectively enslaved to the government for a percentage of their total work time during the year. For example, if someone is required to pay 16% of their earnings in income tax, they have been paid for 84% of the work they have done while the government has been paid for the other 16%. Abolishing income tax means that people are able to work for themselves 100% of the time and therefore this increases individual incentive to work.

Allowing school students to work part-time harms older workers. Teens are cheaper – in the UK there is no minimum wage for under-16s and it is common everywhere for younger workers to be paid less. They can also be pushed around more easily and are unlikely to protest or go on strike. For these reasons many bosses prefer to employ three part-time students for a job, rather than take on a full-time adult. Stopping students taking paid work would therefore create jobs for unemployed adults and help fight poverty.

Progressive taxation acts as a discouragement to overinflated wages. There is a decreasing marginal ...

"Progressive taxation is not the same as 'spread the wealth.'". The Right Wing Professor. 26 Oct. 2008 - "Our federal government spends roughly $3 TRILLION a year and the population is roughly 300 million, which works out to $10,000 per person per year. With a median family in the US earning around $50,000/year and having 3 members, it is clear that this family can't afford to pay its "fair share" of $30,000/year in taxes. Without a drastic slashing of the federal budget, we are forced into a progressive tax system, where by progressive I simply mean the wealthy pay more in taxes than the not so wealthy."

The freedom of choice is essential for a liberal state (not democratic, by the way), but we should differentiate theoretical and practical freedoms. You are free to buy a Rolls-Royce (theoretically), but won't be able if you are a plumber (practically). To protect the freedom of choice, we should increase the theoretical freedom. You are free to get a job and spend your salary as you wish, but you are not free to spend the money of taxpayers on helping your local store or eating out. People in general accept the theoretical freedom, so no issue with trust. Currently people are waiting for the jobs they want. But when the economy is in downturn, there is less money, and a lower wage becomes fine. People don't understand they should all go to work to revive the economy. Skilled labour force working for a low wage in the recession is not unproductive. Even people working for a minimal wage add to the GDP. We never told skilled workers should take less demanding jobs. On the opposite, we were arguing for training the unskilled labour force. Skilled workers should lower their desired wage to get a job in the recession, overcome the crisis, and start earning nice wages again when the economy revives. The government limits the freedom of individuals by making them to pay taxes. Because of the collective action problem people are not able to build roads or parks without authority. When a former banker now is looking for job offers, he is not taking those with a low pay. He is receiving the benefits and waiting for the economy to revive, and the banking sector to start offering better salaries. On the other hand, every citizen is better off if the economy revives. No one is willing to take the first step and take a job with a low wage. The largest benefits would be acquired by those joining the labour market later, when the economy is healthy and wages high. Under our plan the government motivates people to take the first step solving the collective action problem.

You're just rambling. While I like your think positive attitude you're not addressing the point, you are just asserting that it should be left alone and giving me strategies for coping with that and making something positive out of it. Sorry but this is a non point.

If as the debate definition proclaims, 90% high school dropouts regret it, then they should be held back. At eleventh grade students are hardly children, so the daycare comment makes no sense. If students can be kept in school up until tenth grade, keeping them another year, shouldn't be too difficult.

Getting a paid job is a normal part of growing up. For centuries teens were ordinary members of the workforce. And since education became compulsory, hundreds of millions of students have successfully combined school work with a part-time job. Studies have found that working a few hours outside school does not harm achievement, so there is no reason to ban it. Even if having a job did affect students’ education, teens are old enough to make that choice for themselves. It should not be forced on them by an official ban.


Question: Should There Be an Increment in the Federal Minimum Wage?

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to a higher level.

In this debate, I will focus on the economic and sociological impacts that a minimum wage increase would have on our nation. My arguments are as follows:

Contention 1: Wage Increase Does Not Equal More Jobs

An increase in the minimum wage will not create more jobs. Instead, employers will have to either raise prices to offset the burden of increased wages or cut jobs to remain competitive with low prices. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) supports this point, estimating that a wage hike could result in the loss of approximately 500,000 jobs. This scenario would disproportionately affect teenagers in the workforce, as employers may reduce their hours or favor adult workers. For instance, in Wisconsin, when the minimum wage was last raised, unemployment surged from 15.8% to 19.8%. On a larger scale, this could lead to significant job losses, particularly for unskilled labor and teenagers, who are the primary beneficiaries of minimum wage policies. Studies show that as the minimum wage rises, school dropout rates increase, leading to a less skilled workforce and lower wages for these workers in the long run.

Contention 2: Inflation

Raising the minimum wage to an unrealistic level, such as $20 per hour, would cause prices and inflation to rise. The cost of hiring and training employees would increase, resulting in fewer job opportunities. Companies would have to raise prices to cover the increased wages, leading to inflation. For instance, a 25% increase in the minimum wage would result in a corresponding price increase. Economists estimate that the average family would pay an additional $133 per year for goods they typically purchase, with higher-income families paying even more. This inflationary cycle would harm the average household as they would have to pay more for goods and services, negating the benefits of a wage increase.

Contention 3: Inflation's Impact on Global Trade

As the minimum wage increases, the value of the dollar decreases, creating a vicious cycle that negatively affects global trade. Higher inflation rates lead to higher interest rates, which can deter international trade. Economist Paul Krugman states that devaluation of the dollar, caused by inflation, will lead to a decrease in demand for U.S. products, harming the economy. The devaluation of the dollar also leads to higher import prices, making it more expensive for Americans to purchase goods from abroad. Additionally, it harms

"A Good Jobs Program." The New York Times Editorial. September 13th, 2011: "It is also fair tax policy. Under current law, the largest subsidies go to people who need them least — for such things as mortgage interest and charitable giving — because the value of tax breaks rises as income and tax rates rise. Capping such breaks helps to ensure that subsidies are focused on Americans who need them most."

- This is a common counter-argument against concerns surrounding job-loss associated with free trade. While job-loss does occur, the counter-argument is that it is well made-up for by the greater purchasing powers and living-standards of workers in general.

Jeff Madrick. "How big government helps the economy take off." Boston Globe. September 7, 2008: "Reagan swept into office on the promise of tax cuts and reducing government, and what followed were the boom years of the 1980s. To conservatives of the time, it seemed strong proof that the arguments of Friedman and his followers were correct. [...] But there is also a strong case that they were wrong. In 1992, President Bill Clinton succeeded in passing legislation to raise the income tax rate on higher income Americans. Harvard's Feldstein, who had served as Reagan's chief economic adviser, claimed that the tax increase would reduce the incentives to work and therefore the incomes of the wealthy. It turned out to do nothing of the kind: the top tier of Americans, in fact, made more money." [see argument page for extended quote].

Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes.

This argument is not consistent with the previous point. In the previous point the opposition argued for "adequate market pricing for the main INPUTS" - land, water and feed, which are currently too cheap. If the inputs to production are made more expensive, the producers need to adjust the price of the product to still make a profit. So either way the price of meat will increase and either way, people with lower incomes will be "adversely affected".

This is assuming that other taxes cant be progressive. Other progressive taxes could be put in place. For example estate tax and inheritance tax. Even sales tax could be made progressive by having higher taxes on more luxury items and no tax on basics.

We agree it is a pity when one goes bankrupt. Unfortunately, the economy has upswings and downturns. It is important in the downturn, when the money is scarce, we spend it efficiently. Recessions kill inefficient business and if a small grocery store goes bankrupt, it means it was not good enough and others are better at providing food. The owner initially loses, because he has to look for a new occupation, but he would find one he’s better at. In downturns people are more careful at spending their income, so they favour cheaper shops. Laws of supply and demand work, but in terms of industries, not a particular retailer. The demand for bread from a particular retailer goes up, but not the demand for bread in general. If one retailer sets his prices high, we purchase from others. If all of them raise prices, a new player comes in and sells the same for less. The competition is open and anybody can enter the contract. Laws of supply and demand and competition imply there are no abnormal profits and too high prices. It doesn’t matter if it’s the government or individuals who spend money on bread. The bread is purchased, it has been produced, adds to the GDP, the money is in the economy. Money is created not by a transaction and its type, but when goods are produced. Besides, big companies use the money to expand and hire workers. Money is still spent and “double benefit” made. Abuse of the system is still there. Failing a job interview purposely is easy and hard to prove, yet technically going to an interview is looking for job, regardless of performance. According to newest available source from Canada 10% of unemployed people there are chronically unemployed and account for 30% of accumulated unemployment (when calculated in days) [1]. We also need to keep the recession in mind here. Hardworking people will not suffer much anyway, because they will get a job fast. Also they usually have their own savings to spend. [1] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-

Getting a paid job is a normal part of growing up. For centuries teens were ordinary members of the workforce. And since education became compulsory, hundreds of millions of students have successfully combined school work with a part-time job. Studies have found that working a few hours outside school does not harm achievement, so there is no reason to ban it. Even if having a job did affect students’ education, teens are old enough to make that choice for themselves. It should not be forced on them by an official ban.

Maturity should firstly be defined. Maturity in regards to aging is a natural process, which everyone hopefully endures. However, maturity is also the development of the mind. Minds differ and decisions in regards to each individual life differ. Legality cannot be measured via maturity, thusly the age of majority should not be in existence. As it is, it is flawed, though. Lowering the age to 16 would not be beneficial legally and would cause difficulties in the current system. <<< A sign of maturity is to see a problem for the whole thing and not just the small part that upsets you. The whole picture here is a process. What do 18 year olds get to do that 16 year olds can not? Well, for one, they can gamble. They can also buy cigs. Cool, so you want to do one of those? Well any adult 18+ has to go through a process of getting their ID checked for legal age. With what your suggesting there would need to be some kind of way to identify maturity. The only way i can think of is to have a Maturity Test and give people Maturity Cards. The biggest problem is that one might know what is mature but doesn't follow it. Therefore, they could pass the test but doesn't mean they obey what thew wrote off on. Or if its an adult that goes somewhere to say "yes my kid is mature"... well i bet 80% of immature children would have parents who write them off as mature anyways. And now we're also asking stores (that seem to have problems asking for ID) requiring to ask for Maturity Cards. The whole process is beyond faulty, easy to scam and just more complicated than what its worth. Big deal, you have to wait two more years to buy cigs which you can't smoke in school and need a job to support you unhealthy habbit. Or you have to wait 2 years to blow all the petty cash you're making at your min. wage job at a casino. All to create a complicated, easily corrupted system? This does not make sense


Question: Should There Be An Increase In The Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage should be raised in the United States. The minimum wage in the US should be incrementally increased annually to assist in providing a higher income to those who are working for minimum wage. This would help to ensure that individuals who are working hard are able to earn a living wage and can better support themselves and their families.

If as the debate definition proclaims, 90% high school dropouts regret it, then they should be held back. At eleventh grade students are hardly children, so the daycare comment makes no sense. If students can be kept in school up until tenth grade, keeping them another year, shouldn't be too difficult.

The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandatory age of 65 for all of society is to safeguard against the effects of old age on judges, surgeons and other professional practitioners. The age of 65 is chosen as an average age above which it is possible for people to experience problems with their physical or mental well-being. Mandatory retirement would protect against the detrimental effects that could be the result of mistakes or misjudgements by elderly professionals. Many argue that these professions have a great influence over the lives of many e.g. judicial decisions, surgical procedures, and there are at present insufficient safeguards to prevent against incompetence.

Grace-Marie Turner. "Should the United States Mandate Health Insurance...or Not?". MedScape. April 4, 2008: "An individual mandate would inject much more government control into our health sector and would require onerous enforcement provisions, like garnishing people's wages.[4,5] Americans are struggling to afford decent housing, child care, and other necessities. Requiring them to buy health insurance before we address its high costs would further burden the workers and families we're trying to help."

We'll answer in the same order: 1. The International Labor Organization and all its member states recognize the right to strike as an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize [[http://bit.ly/bkPvOJ]] It's also in the Greek constitution [[http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/]] If the right to strike is suspended then workers could simply quit their jobs unless they are granted the conditions they demand, which leads to a whole new set of problems. 2. Fining the individual strikers is absurd; one of the main reasons for strikes is the workers don’t get enough money. The opposition didn't mention the size of fines. 3. By saying that current wages will apply they mean that if a strike takes place illegally the current wages will apply? Or will they apply during mediation but not if there is an illegal strike? Does mediation entail any kind of stoppage that they need to clear this up? Confusing. 4. They say ”wage disputes” will result in mediation. What about other disputes like safety issues? There could also be problems with viewing the ”mutually agreed upon arbitrator” as the solution. Without leverage, the workers may end up with their having to submit to what the other side wants, since they can't threat to walk. 5. If workers can use the threat of a strike they'll end up utilizing the threat of constant mediation as a strategy, causing disruptions that are smaller in individual size but that could up being constant distraction from production. Even if they collectively have to pay for the arbitration sometimes. Other times they will pick something small that they can win in arbitration. 6. This is a bad part of their plan, because to justify what employers pay they would have to give workers only minimum wage. Which is a " living wage to their employees as determined by govt cost of living estimates". Salaries for truckers, for example, should take into account your special abilities and the time away from your family.

James L. Payne, author of a 1991 book "The Culture of Spending", says: "What goes on is a socialization process: a nicer way of saying indoctrination. One is surrounded by people who have a biased reason for arguing that federal spending is good, necessary, wise and proper. There’s no reason for anyone to enter this process if he believes it’s unwise or unethical.”[4]

Lowering the legal drinking age would only result in more fake IDs being made for underaged people looking to buy alcohol. Since many teenagers can look quite a few years older than they actually are, it would not be hard for some to pass as eighteen. I have seen many underaged people drinking who have never proven that they were responsible enough to even be left home alone. Lowering the age would not suppress minors' urge to drink, but rather increase their ability to obtain alcohol illegally since fewer people would be in need of someone old enough to buy the alcohol for them. Just because a young person is considered old enough to be living on their own, does not mean that they are capable of doing so responsibly.

Progressive taxation should increase the total tax take. This means that increased funds are availa...

It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. ...

The presumption under a progressive tax system is that society can determine what is too low and too high of an income. Yet, this is a highly subjective question for society and government to be involved in. The markets are a far better suited for answering this question.

Can enhance you financially in a better way. Not only is the individual feeling the gratification of self-sufficiency, this independence from state-sponsored welfare results in an immediate benefit to its society as a whole when the individual is engaged in a productive manner toward not only the local community, but the nation as a whole.


Question: Should There Be an Increment in the Federal Minimum Wage?

The US economy is performing well. You make a valid point. With the minimum wage, it often seems like you can’t win – either it’s too low or raising it has negative consequences. However, increasing the minimum wage could result in job losses as some employees may be let go or businesses may close. It’s better for workers to earn a decent wage rather than be unemployed and earn nothing. America has created a significant number of jobs. According to CNN, over 1,000,000 jobs were created in 2015 alone, and 280,000 jobs were added in May 2015 (http://money.cnn.com...). While I often disagree with the policies of our current administration and tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum from our President, I must admit that this job growth is impressive. I’m glad I accepted this debate! You also made excellent points, and I appreciate the opportunity for a good debate!

The current system is not incentivizing people to look for a new job, because they get monetary funding for even several years after becoming unemployed. Even in the US, the period during which a person may receive unemployment benefits is 99 weeks. In Denmark an unemployed would receive 90% of income or almost 2000 EUR/month for 4 years. [1] The unemployment benefits should serve their purpose and help people who are looking for a job, but are not capable of getting one. The assumption that people are not able to find a job, because there is none is completely false. In the US, which the team Canada wants to speak so much about, there are 5 million job opportunities [2]. Many employers struggle to find employees not because there is none, but because they lack the qualifications or are unwilling to take a particular job. Under our plan we incentivize people to understand their possibilities. Under the status quo people are looking for a job still being unqualified, not willing to train, and getting paid for that. The current system has no tools to avoid it. A good examples are Germany or France where a lot of unemployed receive enough monetary support for a very long time and are unwilling even to look for a job. They live well being on benefits, and the state has no tools to avoid such cheating. By taking away this opportunity we will stimulate people to take a job according to what they deserve and what is available in the current state of the economy. They won’t be able to wait for a miraculous job they ever dreamed of anymore. Moreover, because there are 5 million free spots, it will have a massive impact on the economy. If we stimulate these people to fill these spots, it will improve the economy, boosting the GDP. This is what both sides are looking for today. [1]https://www.workindenmark.dk [2] http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110277/some-firms-struggle-to-hire-despite-high-unemployment"

i think the drinking age shoi=uld be lowered to 15 because they are already doing it anyway so why should they stand around for time when the could just walk right in i tink the drinkingmage shouldent be lowered because is the law i hate it when the law changes stuoid things but not the secrousily ones like fighting an drugs and why people shouold go to jail even if they havent done anything wrong

Somebody has to pay for free education. If students in this country get a free education than taxes must go up. As a country, we cannot afford to give away education. If we do, this would mean that people who do not have kids, do not have kids in college, or do not have kids who want to go to college must pay for other families who have kids in the college system. In Denmark, education is free, but along with education comes a total income tax of 35.66% of a persons wage. In the United States, where 1 in 7 people live in poverty, this system will not work. When people are struggling just to survive, they should not be put into a situation where they must pay for a great opportunity for someone else. People cannot afford to pay higher taxes, even if it means a free education.

The driving age should be raised because over 5,000 teens die because they are careless, and I do not want to be hit by a careless teen!!!

Maturity should firstly be defined. Maturity in regards to aging is a natural process, which everyone hopefully endures. However, maturity is also the development of the mind. Minds differ and decisions in regards to each individual life differ. Legality cannot be measured via maturity, thusly the age of majority should not be in existence. As it is, it is flawed, though. Lowering the age to 16 would not be beneficial legally and would cause difficulties in the current system. <<< A sign of maturity is to see a problem for the whole thing and not just the small part that upsets you. The whole picture here is a process. What do 18 year olds get to do that 16 year olds can not? Well, for one, they can gamble. They can also buy cigs. Cool, so you want to do one of those? Well any adult 18+ has to go through a process of getting their ID checked for legal age. With what your suggesting there would need to be some kind of way to identify maturity. The only way i can think of is to have a Maturity Test and give people Maturity Cards. The biggest problem is that one might know what is mature but doesn't follow it. Therefore, they could pass the test but doesn't mean they obey what thew wrote off on. Or if its an adult that goes somewhere to say "yes my kid is mature"... well i bet 80% of immature children would have parents who write them off as mature anyways. And now we're also asking stores (that seem to have problems asking for ID) requiring to ask for Maturity Cards. The whole process is beyond faulty, easy to scam and just more complicated than what its worth. Big deal, you have to wait two more years to buy cigs which you can't smoke in school and need a job to support you unhealthy habbit. Or you have to wait 2 years to blow all the petty cash you're making at your min. wage job at a casino. All to create a complicated, easily corrupted system? This does not make sense

The rich should have to pay because it is the money they get, in large part, from the poor that allows them such a priveleged position. Where else would the money come from? Let us also not forget that the poor also pay taxes. If it was not so a very definite elite class would emerge, becoming virtually impenetrable for all without. The facilitation of a path to higher education for lower income students is vital to maintaining, or even creating, a more balanced society.

Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a capitalist system the value of goods and services is recognised in financial terms, so a wage would recognise the important contribution of homemakers. As well as being important, housework is physically taxing, time consuming and in balancing the needs of a household, a relatively specialised task. These features are all valued highly by the marketplace, and it is a pure accident of history that homekeepers have not been included in this.

Ian Parry. "Should Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Be Increased?". Resources for the Future. 17 Sept. 2007 - "Another policy option is to raise fuel taxes, which unlike CAFE, would reduce congestion and other highway externalities, through reducing vehicle miles traveled. While the case for higher fuel taxes is, in my view, more clear-cut, this option is still highly controversial."

The driving age should not be raised to 18 because driving takes training and sitting on your butt for two more years is not going to put any more expirence in you. No matter what age you start driving, you will be inexperience. So you minds well start out at 16 where you are still in high school and are not going to college or start working. I'll gradutate high school at 17, so it would be nice to have a license before I graduate, so I dont have to worry about learning how to drive and take the test, when I am on my own. Plus, the only way to know how to drive in the winter, know the speed limit, where pot holes are, and how to handle sharp turns is to get out on the road and drive.

When people are paid more in the market it doesn't mean that people believe in what they are producing more. It means that they own more property, have more bargaining power or are better at making other people pay the bills (often by exploiting them). So the best way to make money under capitalism is not to produce something good that we all love, but to already be rich or to be a thug. The more money you have the more money you will get in the future, do to payments for property, increased bargaining power due to having lots of money. And the less money you have, the less you will get in the future, for the inverse of the same reasons. Rewarding thugs and people who are lucky enough to already have alot of money (that they usually got by extracting value from other people's labour) hardly seems like a fair method of remuneration. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite. And the idea that transactions in capitalism do not harm either party is a myth. See the argument on exploitation (in the inequalities section) and the argument on imperialism (in the history section) for a rebuttal. For more problems of capitalist markets see here.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

States should not have the authority to seek capital punishment for a defendant who pleads guilty. The State must not be granted the power to pursue the death penalty for a criminal who pleads guilty. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com... On April 1, 2013, the district attorney for Arapahoe County, George Brauchler, declared that they would seek the death penalty for James E. Holmes. Before this announcement, the defense team had offered to plead guilty to all charges to avoid the death penalty.

Positions:
Me: I will argue in favor of this stance.
PRO You: You will argue that states should have the right to pursue the death penalty regardless of the defendant's plea.

Debate Format:
Round 1 Administrative Round: Please state the following: "I accept the debate and will argue that states should have the authority to pursue the death penalty regardless of the defendant's plea."
Round 2
Me: Opening Statement
You: Opening Statement / First Rebuttal
Round 3
Me: First Rebuttal / Questions to Opposing Side (3 Max)
You: Questions to Opposing Side (3 Max) / Answers to Questions
Round 4
Me: Answers to Questions / Response to Answers
You: Response to Answers / Final Arguments or Rebuttals
Round 5
Me: Final Arguments or Rebuttals / Closing Statements
You: Closing Statements

If you have no questions, simply state: "I have no questions for my opponent."
Good luck!

I apologise for the misinterpretation of the verse from the Bible. I accept it may not have been the best quote to use. In spite of this I am still not in favour of the death penalty. A law or punishment should not be merely a form of deterrence. It should be a way to enforce and promote good values and attitudes. Simply putting a barrier rather than giving people the opportunity to change their ways will not change anything in my opinion. There will always be crimes, the law will always be broken and so it cant be said that a death penalty is the complete answer to problems. My point is that if this act was lifted or simply if the criminals were to move to a location where the death penalty is not in place, then crime rates will increase again. A death penalty will not ensure the stability of our community in the long-term as in order for a more permanent state of stability. peace and prosperity needs to occur because people are willing to refuse immoral acts, not just because of the punishments placed by the law, although I accept that this will have an impact. By your request I will reinstate my last question. You mentioned how "Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind." My question is why does this verse only apply to the public and why does it not to the government should they make a mistake in their judgement. Also, I would appreciate if you made it clear to which extent a death penalty should be placed. Do you think that death penalties should apply for every serious crime or murder irrespective of the circumstances (such as the accidental killing) or do you think that it should only be applicable in certain situations? If so which?

Even if I was tortured, I would still see no reason for my torturer to have his one and only life taken away from him; and like I said, that's the easy way out for him. The reasonable thing to do is give him a harsh punishment, let him sit in prison for some years, and have him receive help in therapy after that. I know that what he did to you was horrendous, but I think yanking his life away is still a bit extreme. This is why the government only executes the death penalty when someone commits murder, endangers government officials, or endangers the country. In summary, the only way someone should receive the death penalty is if they commit any of the crimes I listed above. Most of everyone deserves a second chance, and not for their life to be snatched away from them. Again, it's not morally justified.

You said: "But if we are to punish them through death, then shouldn't we AT LEAST make it equal to how they killed the victim." Ah but THAT would be equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal. The point of execution isn't to "get even," it's to eliminate a threat to public safety. So the method of execution is irrelevant - we're not trying to give the criminal his or her just desserts, we're simply removing a dangerous individual from the population permanently in the interest of public safety. You said: "Also, what more can a killer do in jail to bea threat to society?" Again, you're correct that if we put a killer in jail for life that ALSO eliminates the threat posed to society. But your argument is that it's not just for us to execute those criminals. I'm saying that we can choose to do either one - it doesn't matter. We can choose to eliminate a threat to society by locking him or her up for life, or we can execute that person. They achieve the same result, so I'm arguing that they are morally equivalent, and that the death penalty is not impermissible, as you're arguing it is.

My opponent states that rehabilitation is an acceptable alternative to punish. However, this isn't the case. This method provides no deterrance to keep a criminal from committing the same crime again. It's easy to go out and do the same thing again when you "have nothing to lose". With death you have EVERYTHING to lose. The recidivism rates in the United States can be as high as 22%(http://www.nber.org...) which could result from a lack of deterrance. Even convicts for less serious crimes should go through a system of punishment rather than a system of rehabilitation in order to deter them from committing crimes again in the future. My opponent also states that death is the "easy way out" while sitting in prison is a punishment. I'll like to address that nowadays many prisons are filled with many luxuries that a criminal clearly doesn't deserve. Does a criminal deserve to sit more, have more leisure time, and more luxuries than an average law-abiding citizen who has to work long hours in order to make a living? This is one such example of these luxurious prisons: http://sabbah.biz.... These prisons don't really punish a criminal therefore death would be the better alternative for crimes such as murder which is considered to be one of the worst crimes in most countries. Also, if somebody killed a family member or friend of mine I would want them dead. It's a common mentality most people would probably have regarding murderers. Lastly, my opponent states that "an eye for an eye" would make the instigator a criminal too. However, the criminal struck first and did harm to the victim. The victim should be able to strike back in self-defense in order to protect themselves and others when their property and/or bodies are threatened. It's not exactly fair justice when a criminal recieves about half a punishment as what the victim recieved by being victimized. If the criminal doesn't want to be punished they shouldn't be a criminal. To address my opponent's last point, for the sake of this debate I'm arguing that the death penalty is acceptable as a punishment for murder.

I'm afraid future responses won't be quite this fast. Introduction,Pro's argument is founded upon the idea that men deserve death if they have killed blatanly. Basically, justice requires men recieve their due. I would agree that death penalty makes sense morally, however in an imperfect world the death penalty does not serve justce. Let's take a closer look at the goals of the dealth penalty in my first main point. 1. The goals of capital punishment are deterrence and justice. Rachel C. King (J. D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> . http://law.bepress.com... “In its post-Furman jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has acknowledged several state interests that may support capital punishment. These interests include deterrence, retribution, [and] incapacitation, and denunciation and vindication of legal and moral order. Deterrence and retribution are the two most commonly cited reasons for maintaining the death penalty. ” However the dealth penalty fails in these purposes. To prove this, let's take a look at my next few points. Death Penalty does not serve Justice. 2. Innocent people sentenced to death Prof. Victor Streib (professor of law at Ohio Northern University, attorney specializing in violent crime and the death penalty, frequently cited by the U. S. Supreme Court), “CLASSIC ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY,” Elon Law Review (Vol. 1 Issue 1 pp 1-16),2009 . http://www.elon.edu... “The ultimate end result of discrimination, caprice, and just plain bad luck can be clear error: convicting and sentencing to death an innocent offender. The death penalty system is operated and controlled by human beings who are not immune to human error. [later, in the same context:]Over 120 innocent persons have been sent to death row in the current era (since 1973), and several other states have ordered a moratorium on executions until the causes of these fatal errors are found. ” The death penalty also has a violently negative effect on other innocent victims; the families of death row inmates. 3. The innocent suffer with the guilty Rachel C. King (J. D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> . http://law.bepress.com... “Many people lose the support of their friends and community when a family member is on death row. One woman whose brother was on death row said, “[a]ll my friends . . . just abandoned me. They didn’t support me at all during the years, and when I came down for [my brother’s] execution, not one of them showed any support. Not one of them called or came over, NOT ONE! ” This woman eventually developed high blood pressure, migraine headaches, depression and sleeplessness as a result of her brother’s arrest. ” Not only does the death penalty punish the innocent along with the guilty, but capital defendants are also given grossly incompetent legal representation, severely lessening their chance at a fair trial. 4. Capital defendants are given incompetent representation Prof. Scott Vollum (Ph. D. in Criminal Justice, Associate Professor of Justice Studies, James Madison University), Prof. Stacy Mallicoat (Ph. D. in Sociology, Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at California State University—Fullerton, CA), and Prof. Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum (Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at James Madison University), “Death Penalty Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value-Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability,” Southwestern Association of Criminal Justice, published in Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp 221-242), 2009<accessed July 2, 2011>. http://www.utsa.edu... “Organizations such as the American Bar Association, countless observers and participants in capital trials, capital jurors, and scholarly research studies have all testified to the grossly incompetent legal representation offered to many capital defendants during their trials and sentencing. In addition to the often ill-prepared, ill-equipped, inexperienced, or simply incompetent representation in many capital cases, numerous cases of mentally ill, drunken, and sleeping lawyers have been documented in recent years. ” These three points put together shows how capital punishment cannot serve its goal of justice. 5. Non-deterrence Prof. Scott Vollum (Ph. D. in Criminal Justice, Associate Professor of Justice Studies, James Madison University), Prof. Stacy Mallicoat (Ph. D. in Sociology, Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at California State University—Fullerton, CA), and Prof. Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum (Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at James Madison University), “Death Penalty Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value-Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability,” Southwestern Association of Criminal Justice, published in Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp 221-242), 2009<accessed July 2, 2011>. http://www.utsa.edu... “In spite of decades of studies, researchers have failed to find the death penalty to be a general deterrent (i. e. , the death penalty has not been found to deter or stop other people from committing murder). ” The bottom line is this, the dealth penalty is flawed and does not serve justce. Nor does it deter future violence. A much more just sentence with less error woulfd be life imprisonment. I apologize for any mispelled words.

I like the point you are trying to prove. Rather clever and I would say I could agree to some extent. Although it sounds so easy when you put it that way. Cheaper costs, more cruelty to the criminal and happiness to the victims. But as you've mentioned, death is an eternal sleep and to some, it is an escape from their wretched lives. So in your prospective, dying is a positive thing because the person will not live anymore? As you've defined death for me, let me define life to you. Life is about seeing the world, learning about different cultures and expanding knowledge. Yes, having a person confined in prison will make their life a pain. But in my opinion, having their "lives" stunted from diversity and knowledge is basically enough to be a pain. Also, of course a criminal would be sentenced to jail but not every single criminal, whether it be a thief, a murderer or a rapist will be sentenced a LIFETIME of confinement. So why not imprison them to suffer (As your point to not believing in death penalty is so that the criminal will live a life of discomfort.) and then have them killed after they've served the number of years they deserve in prison? Further more, let's take a killer for example. Mark David Chapman. Famously known to be responsible for second degree murder on to John Lennon. This man was sentenced 20 years to a life time in prison. Let's say the circumstance was that they decided to let him go after 20 years. Yes he's rot in prison for 2 decades. But now he's out, what's going to stop him from killing someone else or commiting another crime? Now with this context of him happily out of jail, he can live his life and live happily with his family. Same goes for most criminals who are not sentenced a life time of imprisonment. They get to live their lives in the end once they've been let out. What I'm trying to prove is that criminals should be confined and then be punished with death. Leaving them no chance to explore the world, learn about cultures, and expand knowledge.

Dear Proby, I am not going to debate this topic with you in a traditional voting style format. You simply asked me why I don't believe in the death penalty, so I will answer your question. I am not going to try to convince the viewers or you what is right, so theres no need in voting. Death as a punishment is very severe, and I am a Christian, so I do not believe in killing people, and I do believe in forgiveness. The best solution is to lock them up and let God deal with them once they die.

This is a debate on the Death Penalty. No slurs or bad language, I will let my opponent go first since I am against. Enjoy!

In response to my opponent when he said, "In the eyes of god there is no difference between one human to another- be they be a member of the government or not." The fact is, God instructs us to submit to governing authorities. They hold power over people in a different way than people hold power over each other. Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." The government does have the power to implement laws in order to establish justice. The verse that the Negative made was clearly taken out of context... the Bible here was talking about the population spreading across the earth, not that governments shouldn't exist. "The death penalty is a deterrent. I agree. By establishing a death penalty there may be reduced crime however this will only be due to the fear of prosecution rather than as a result of moral consciousness or a development of moral beliefs." The fact is simple, the death penalty is a deterrent and it deters potential murders thereby reducing crime and restoring justice. It doesn't matter how the bad guys are deterred, the important fact is that we're saving innocent lives. "Furthermore a death penalty can not reverse the effects of the crime. It can not bring the life of a victim back. It cannot undo the physical or psychological effects of the crime. There is however one thing that a death penalty system can do, I admit- encourage a culture of vengeance." In implementing the death penalty we are not attempting to do something impossible, like bring lives back. I challenge the negative to find any evidence that the death penalty encourages vengeance. There is finally the fact of the case being misjudged. There is a risk in every court decision that it is not just. This is a risk we must take. I understand that there are false convictions but I also personally believe that polygraph evidence ought to be abolished because they are often so untrustworthy. In real life, more innocent lives will be saved with the death penalty because of the deterrent factor. The death penalty saves innocent lives. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies. Will you please restate you last question? I'm not sure I quite understand it.

The death penalty should definitely not remain in place. What image are we portraying to others if we solve killing with more killing?