Question: Is Pursuing a College Degree Considered Valuable?

Higher Education is Outdated for Millennials

The assertion that higher education is outdated for the millennial generation is a complex issue that requires a nuanced discussion. While it is true that the earnings potential for college graduates is nearly double that of high school graduates, this statistic alone does not capture the full value of higher education for millennials. The worth of a college degree must be evaluated within the context of the millennial generation's core values, ambitions, and societal concerns.

Millennials are characterized by their interest in aligning their daily work with larger societal concerns, such as community development, corporate social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. They place a higher value on experiences over material possessions, with 87.5% disagreeing that money is the best measure of success, compared to 78% of the total population. This suggests that the financial benefits of a college education are not the primary motivator for millennials.

The role of a college education in signaling qualifications to employers of higher-skilled jobs is also a contentious issue. While it may indicate a level of knowledge and skill, this reliance on degrees to determine job eligibility is an indication of a flawed system that needs reform. Moreover, higher education can perpetuate inequality by creating barriers to knowledge and job opportunities for the economically disadvantaged.

An estimated 36% of millennials not enrolled in college cite financial constraints as the reason. In an ideal society, a poor but intelligent individual should not be denied access to higher education due to economic barriers, while a less intelligent but wealthy individual can easily obtain a degree. This disparity highlights the need for significant reform in higher education, such as making college tuition-free and funded by taxes.

The availability of alternative pathways to success outside of traditional college education is another factor to consider. For example, one can become an actuary through an exam or pursue a legal career without attending law school. Abraham Lincoln himself emphasized the importance of self-determination in achieving success, suggesting that alternative routes to professional success are viable and should be encouraged.

Experience and skills are equally important indicators of qualification for employment. Specialized knowledge in fields such as journalism, history, French, or photography does not necessarily require a formal degree. Skills, which are often better predictors of job performance, can be acquired through alternative means, further challenging the monopoly of higher education on career readiness.

The pressure on millennials to make career decisions without adequate experience or understanding of the working world is problematic. Many millennials are indecisive about their career paths due to the overwhelming number of options available to them. Approximately 60

In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school. As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs. Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject. Thus, adding opinions, most of which are consistent through the entire country, is almost required. Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning. What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word. Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future.

From ancient time education was inseparable part of human development. If our ancestries sat in front of stones and wrote with sticks and now we are sitting in classes with hi-tech equipment we still have the same aim-to get knowledge for future life. Education is a guarantee for successful work and well-paid job. We pay a huge amount of money to our universities and it increases from year to year. Government should give a chance for everyone to take attainments and stable tomorrow. If not, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

"You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy." My opponent reiterates his point that larger incomes would lead to larger income taxes. I must repeat my point that incomes will not increase. Companies do not pay more for someone just because of a degree, they pay according to how much money they make and how much money they can afford to pay someone. Someone with a college education can beat out those with poorer levels of education for jobs. But when everyone has an equal shot at the same level of education, competition ceases to exist and the money difference is minimal. Hence, the cost to the middle class in terms of tax for this proposal is enormous compared to the nearly non-existent increase in pay. "Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement." I hate to say this, but my opponent is incorrect in saying that those jobs are not common in the United States. Plenty of physicists, chemists, and engineers have trouble finding jobs. And I use those terms loosely. Many people who major in chemistry, physics, or engineering have trouble finding employment. Further saturating those fields would only lead to more hardship. Besides, larger quantity does not necessarily mean better quality. More on that later. "Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough." I say, "tough luck". The only beneficiaries of this would be the kids in extraordinarily poor neighborhoods. I don't mean to sound politically incorrect, but to pour money into that would be a gigantic waste. Professionals for the most part, arise from the middle class. The intellect required to be a professional comes from living in better environments and having a good childhood. Pouring billions of dollars into poor neighborhoods in the hopes that the one possible doctor or one possible lawyer will arise is just absurd because then you would cripple the middle class into forcing their kids into worse schools since their money has to go to paying poor kids to waste their time in some community college for a degree in underwater basket weaving instead of putting their own kid through medical school. "People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted." That's ridiculous. As there are very demanding colleges, there are also colleges where the only prerequisite for admission is being able to breathe. There are plenty of colleges where students just show up to lecture and take tests as a formality, learning absolutely nothing and coming out with a garbage degree. "Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!" I agree. This is why I am in support of granting free acceptance to state colleges for all college age men and women enrolled in the military. However, your reasoning is that by throwing money at poor people, we can turn them all into doctors and lawyers. *********************************************************************** I think this debate has gotten quite confusing because of all the different issues. Let me simplify them: 1. My opponent's plan would take middle class kids out of college and put poor kids into college. There are more productive middle class people than there are potentially productive poor people. Overall, we LOWER the amount of skill in the work force. 2. My opponent's plan would increase unemployment because it would skyrocket the number of people majoring in things they expect to pay off while the number of jobs available remain the same. 3. My opponent's plan would raise taxes massively and it wouldn't be fair. How would people who don't want to go to college benefit from this? How would older individuals who have already graduated benefit from this? What about people who don't want to have children? There is absolutely no foreseeable, positive outcome from my opponent's proposal. All of it is guesswork based on shallow reasoning and naivetï¿½.

This is alot more challenging than I thought it would be, but that's OK; I like a challenge. "So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that." I accept that picking up the toy is a service, however when you consider that the child must first get the toy out, it cancels out any beneficial effect thet picking up the toy may cause, but that's only if they put the toy away right when they are done playing with it, if they leave it out, and the parent/sibling steps on it, then they comited yet another dis-service. Consider this, if I were to shoot someone, then call an abulance, would you consider the event do a service for someone? What if they died before it got there? As for the chores, I know that you didn't do any meaningful chores other than the ones you were(very) well compensated for(I was very jelous). "Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic." Teaching them is doing yourself a service, as the children don't actually do anything. The children only do a service if they USE what they are taught(which they rarely do). This may seem like semantics but it's a BIG distiction. "No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant." People don't always do things to benefit themselves, sometimes people do things just to be nice. We call those people alruists(dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com...). We(or at least I) see commercials all the time trying to get me to send money to help people in Africa(which I would if I had anything to give), they must be getting money from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to air commercials.

Ya I enjoy debating, but I"m dyslexic so if don"t focus I mess stuff up. Most of the time Word catches it for me, and no one ever see it. No big deal, I think debating has more priority than messing up a little bit on words and whatnots. The biggest supporting factor for the devaluing of labor is production. Between 1973 and 2013 production grew by 74%, but compensation only grew by 9%. https://www.theatlantic.com... And what small gains have been made in compensation get gobbled up as the purchasing power of the dollar continues to fall. http://www.pewresearch.org... When we look at the GDP we see wages accounted for 50 percent in 1975 but in fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. http://www.nytimes.com... Also I think we can all remember when one income could support a family and provide for a retirement. But the cost of living has increased dramatically. http://reason.com... This has created an environment where even with both parents working it"s still difficult to make ends meet. https://www.nytimes.com... There has been a systematic devaluation workers. The minimum wage was implemented years ago but as with wages, has stayed stagnant. As inflation pushes the cost of living higher and the purchasing power of the dollar lower, the workers of this country's value is deflated more and more. We can all see the difference of the past versus the realities of the present.

>>It is also such an important right that it is not to be given to the parents. Just wondering, but since when was the government more qualified to make a decision for children than the children's own parents? You would think that the parents would know the child better and be able to determine what is best for them, not the government, right? >>For nowadays you no longer need just a high school diploma…it is essential that you have a college degree and just to get into a decent college you need to be on the cutting edge in your class. And therefore the government should force little children into spending 8 hours a day learning about things they will often not have any interest in or need. For instance, grammar is a subject that is not often liked. Why should children spend 8 hours a day learning about conjunctions when they would most likely never use that knowledge when they exit high school? Also, what if the child does not want to get a college degree? You do not have to have a college degree to get a job. If you think that you do, then you should ask people who work, and see if they have a college degree? Chances are, some of the people you ask will say no. >>So if the parent's would rather have their child do something else such as working for there living than that would be horrible considering the fact that education is a catalyst for development. Again, because the parent might not want their child to go to school and might want to teach them something other than algebra, the government should take this right out of the parent's hands and force children to go to school? >>That is why it is so key to offer education to third-world countries—if it weren't, than why would we be constantly wasting our time? This is an irrelevant argument because this debate is about the USA, which is not a third world country. >>Thus, it isn't fair for a child who might yearn for the power of knowledge yet denied it because of their parent. Knowledge is not defined by how well you know your ABCs. There are many things that you learn outside of school. True, there are some things that you would most likely not learn without going to school, but going to school does not guarantee knowledge. >>It's the child's right to have the same stepping-stone that most of their peers will have. If a parent objects to the way the school system is run than they have a choice of home-schooling their child but if they are too lazy to do even that…then they don't care about their child and obviously incapable of making such a decision on whether or not their child should even have an education. In today's world, there are many different ways to attain knowledge. You do not always have to have someone teach you for you to learn. An education does not have to be attained in a classroom. It can be attained on the computer, through books, etc. There are many different media for information to be transfered. >>A parent has a right to make adaptations to their child's education—share their beliefs, take an active part, choose the school, and the choice…but to deny it altogether is a risk for the future. It is like food—the child has a right to eat but the parent chooses what mainly goes in it. The child has a right to education but the parent may choose what mainly goes in it. I am in no way saying that parents should force their children to not have an education in a classroom. I am saying that parents should have the right to not take their children to school, not that they should have the duty to pull them out and not teach them. Also, a lot of the time when the parents volunteer, they do what the school wants them to do, not what the parent wants to do. I am done refuting all of your arguments, and now I will move on to my own argument. Like I said earlier in my first post, education should not be something forced upon children. If the child would like to go to school, it should be up the indivudual child. Not the government. The crux of my argument is that it should not be the government's job to make sure that children go to school. It should be up to the individual child and his/her parents. You don't force people to learn. Anyone who has taught children knows that you don't just throw information at children and hope that they can figure out what you are saying. That is ineffective and frustrating for the child when they do not understand, and it is frustrating for the teacher when they find out that they are not teaching the child effectivley. Likewise, the government should not force children to go to an environment where they may not be comfortable. It is not the government's job to do so. It is either the child's or the parent's job. Thank you

I am opposed to the position that college should be free. There are numerous solutions to those who cannot pay out of pocket for college. I will wait for my opponent's arguments in the next round before I go any further with evidence to back up my position.

Counter One: "And for something to be "useful" it must tangible (definition of useful: "of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs"; From dictionary.com)" That definition is definition two. I used definition one, which I believe is definition one because it's either better or more commonly used. I would more commonly use definition one, but that's just my opinion. Can we try not to turn this into a definition argument? How about we just use both since they both define useful (see the link to the definition in round one). Counter Two: "Picking up something YOU got out is not performing a service to someone else, it is balancing a dis-service. As for doing chores, no-one I know actually did any meaningful chores(that I know of) until they hit their early teens." But if you balance a dis-service, then it is made a service. Maybe we need to define surface. We really need to stop getting into semantics. Whatever, here's one. Service(1): An act of helpful activity; help; aid: to do someone a service http://dictionary.reference.com... So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that. Counter Three: "Now onto school. Public school is not actually free, you must pay taxes in order to finance it. As for the assertion that schools teach discipline, it is irrelevent. Wether the parents teach disciplin, or the schools do, the child is still benefitting from it at a cost to society. Moving onto what would happen if children weren't educated, through most of human civilization education was either non-existent, or reserved for the wealthy, and yet: here we are. Formal Education is not neccisary to succeed. In fact, Andrew Jackson(president of the U.S.A.) had very little formal education." Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic. Counter Four: "Yet again, we come to an irrelevant point. Wether a child is allowed to work has NOTHING to do with wether he/she is parasitic." I agree with you on that, but you still have to counter all of my points above. Counter Five: "Wether people like or want children is also COMPLETELY irrelevent." No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: I don't think I need any. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: In conclusion, you should vote Con. Also, the spell check isn't working. I'm sure some people know that already, and they probably know that it's irrelevant.

since my opponent has failed to post an argument there is nothing for me to refute so I will just make a few points on the matter observation1- what do you mean by Universities? is it all universities? or specific universities? or private universities? observation2- since my opponent made relative the word "universities" then it must be all university's can you say what universitys actually want does the university at Montepellier prefer the same programs as the Texas lutheran university and if they don't then wouldn't that make whoever's for this resolution by default wrong observation3- since "universities" is relative and the resolution is subjective this begs the question how should this resolution be debated? contention 1- The liberal arts cover a wide range of academic disciplines: art, classics, language, literature, philosophy and much more. Completing a Doctorate in Liberal Arts generally prepares you to become a university professor, but certain concentrations can lead you into nonacademic fields. this is very interesting if you learn about everything you can become a professor, but who is actually or who in general wants to become a professor nowadays and if a doctors gets you to become a professor imagine what a masters does a teacer at some praised private school and then it probably goes down hill from there

it is understood that college is very costly, but if we look at the opportunity that we give our kids with FREE college it becomes a wish come true. college debt is american's number one fear. you graduate college and then work the next ten years to try and climb yourself out of a debt you digged only to better yourlself. more kids today will avoid college all together and eliminate a great opportunity because of the debt. national interest hits an all time high and our kids barely have enough


Question: Is Pursuing a College Education a Valuable Investment?

The concept of free tuition for college students, funded by government taxation, should be endorsed. My opponent argues that the cost of college education is one of the most expensive investments people make, and I concur that higher education is often more costly than many other purchases. However, the question is whether this expense is justified. The average person spends more on college than on cars, watches, or other personal luxuries. Unless someone is buying a $100,000 watch or car, the cost of education typically outweighs these expenditures. While my opponent suggests that restrictions on the resolution might not align with its original intent, I propose that these restrictions are necessary for the implementation of free tuition in the United States. Many social programs in other countries are contingent upon specific conditions, such as a minimum GPA for college students in the UK. In this context, millionaires should not receive tax-funded benefits, as they do not need financial assistance for education. Similarly, outrageously priced institutions should not benefit from this resolution. The current system already restricts certain benefits, such as food stamps not covering expensive cuts of meat. The resolution should provide a foundation for education, with state schools like Purdue University or Iowa State offering high-quality education at a lower cost than private institutions. The statement that all college students should benefit equally from free tuition is flawed, as not all students are equal in terms of academic performance or financial need. Why should a 4.0 student receive the same benefits as a 0.8 student? Why should a millionaire receive the same amount as a student who relies on food stamps? These scenarios are unjustifiable. The argument that the program would not work for certain students, such as those attending expensive institutions, misses the point. The program can be adapted to suit individual needs, as is done with other government programs. There is no reason why the government cannot provide higher levels of assistance to students attending institutions like MIT. The claim that a huge investment in free tuition, funded by increased taxes, would not prove worthwhile is unfounded. College graduates typically earn more money than those without a degree, resulting in higher tax revenues for the country. The correlation between education investment and literacy rates and success in a country is evident. Countries that outspend the US on education, such as Finland and Singapore, have higher literacy rates and perform better in international assessments. The notion of self-made individuals and self-reliance is not relevant to this debate. The resolution does not exclusively apply to the United States, and introducing American philosophies is irrelevant

So why not sell it to the Ivory Tower? Sign up for yer education here!

My friend, Education shouldn't be free for everyone and "COULDN'T" be free for everyone. Let us assume that education is free for everyone, then where would you get the funds needed---- - In Buying seats, tables, blackboards, or whiteboards? It would be unfair for the students to seat on the classroom floor (isn't it?). - In giving the proper salary rate for the teachers and school-guards? Without the proper salary rate, teacher wouldn't work harder... and it might also make other people think that choosing the teaching job would be a bad idea because of the low salary. --->So that shows that education couldn't be free for everyone.

Having the college tuition rate lowered will have a successful completion rate of graduating a two year college because it is so affordable while also having lowered the debt collection at the beginning of a four year college. The cost of attending college has skyrocketed and is moving faster than the economy today. There are more students who attend college even if they cannot afford to attend which means taking out students loans and making the decision of not having a home loan when it is time to decide to do so in the future (Anderberg). .

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn? The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative? (hint: it doesn't. ) Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words". What a waste of time.

since my opponent has failed to post an argument there is nothing for me to refute so I will just make a few points on the matter observation1- what do you mean by Universities? is it all universities? or specific universities? or private universities? observation2- since my opponent made relative the word "universities" then it must be all university's can you say what universitys actually want does the university at Montepellier prefer the same programs as the Texas lutheran university and if they don't then wouldn't that make whoever's for this resolution by default wrong observation3- since "universities" is relative and the resolution is subjective this begs the question how should this resolution be debated? contention 1- The liberal arts cover a wide range of academic disciplines: art, classics, language, literature, philosophy and much more. Completing a Doctorate in Liberal Arts generally prepares you to become a university professor, but certain concentrations can lead you into nonacademic fields. this is very interesting if you learn about everything you can become a professor, but who is actually or who in general wants to become a professor nowadays and if a doctors gets you to become a professor imagine what a masters does a teacer at some praised private school and then it probably goes down hill from there

I have been learning things and activities and I come across this word that my mother says all the time is that education is the most powerful weapon I have hearing this an thinking into this is that it could be true. Think about it. Education is what that has caused us to have computers and all this good ideas. It is what I am thinking is that education is very powerful. I have also known to research that how people made things is because of education. The learning part. This is the key to the things we make. I am thinking that you should believe that it is true. So yes. I again will say that education is the most powerful weapon and this thinking I have will never fall from my head. Anybody watching this, you will find out a surprise that education is the one that changed you life. Believe this and if you don't fine! Thinks you want until you will learn that it will change your life forever. This again will be my topic and I will sow you my proof for this. If you want to fight over, than do it. I am giving you a choice to think.

Thank you for your reply, however much of what you write appears to be a potentially screwed historical interpretation of *how* a class imbalance was perpetrated rather than *why* it is requisite for American capitalism to flourish. To pass comment upon this part therefore may only server to distract us from the initial assertion and its pertinent analysis. If I may be permitted to quickly counter a couple of the your assertions however: sophists wouldn"t be the best example of profit motivation since if you think my rhetoric is sophistry I can assure you that this website is not paying me anything for my contributions. :-) And as for the more expensive universities only producing students more arrogant rather than better educated, a simple published league table would show that Oxford and Cambridge are indeed justified as the pre-eminent educators, as this one does for example: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk... I am interested in why you dispute that a street sweeper might labour as earnestly as a banker (since you provide no argument as to why it might not be so). I would say it depends upon how you specifically define hard work. Would you consider one element to be the hours worked? One would be lucky to find a high-street bank still open after 16:00. Would work that is physically tiring be considered laborious? In which case the banker does no physically demanding work at all! Would the conditions be at all relevant? The street sweeper endures all the elements of every season whilst the banker would likely not even walk through them on the way to his or her office. What about the intellectual exertions of the job? Ah, here I may be able to throw you a bone after all! Perhaps you see this as the definition of labour worthy of greater remuneration. Please, by all means let me know if this is the one and only true definition of how the worth of a man"s labour should be judged. I would be delighted to show the weakness of such an argument if you chose to adopt it. You go on to describe the un-evidenced means of how a modern class divide is maintained, but unfortunately once more without saying why it is strictly necessary. If we look to the poverty gap from the middle of the last century onwards it is clear to see it widening without any benefits to the capitalist economy at all, indeed it proves to be counter productive. In the 1950s when America was the world"s most powerful economy there was a much greater equality in living standards. In the modern world where China has stolen that mantle of pre-eminence we see economic decline in America and the weakening of the US dollar. To draw direct correlation would be to rely upon the tenuous evidence of bivariates, but since the aim of my thesis is merely to disprove that an underclass is necessarily requisite for American capitalism to function, it proves adequately that a more equal society would not only function as efficiently, but function better. I could go further and postulate upon a capitalist based society with an inequality so slight as to be almost indefinable, but I don"t need to go that far, only as far as proving that an oppressed underclass is not required. Although therefore arbitrary, it was the permanence I had disputed by reference to the American dream, which I had always interpreted as the concept of anyone from any class of society having the freedom and opportunity to achieve whatever their aspirations wished. Conceptually I"m sure that would be indisputable. If, however, you wish to challenge its practical application, there would be grounds for debate there too I"m sure. There does seem to be some contradictory statements proffered, for example, wealthy people most often are wealthy from having well paid jobs, thus a wealthy person wouldn"t be "sweeping streets or flipping burgers for wages" because their wages would come from their normal, well paid jobs. I can"t therefore see your point. Also, do you not say that the under-class are required for their labour, but then you say the "upper class creates a surplus of resources" and were they to "overprice them to sell to those in need" then those in need wouldn"t be able to afford them. I"m sure you suggested the under-class was required so that the upper-class could enjoy the fruits of the underclass" labour, not the other way around. I was only really being flippant about the night and day issue, but if you really wanted to pursue it, then Antarctica does indeed eventually become shrouded in perpetual darkness as well, but that comes in its winter, thus it is more the changing of the season rather than the changing of the day which alternates the light and the dark. Beyond the bounds of the solar system there is indeed the light of the stars, which we define as part of the night, thus perpetual night without day. I can"t see any additional light being shined upon the argument by your counter unfortunately. By all means try again though. :-)

we also have to look at the fact that not ALL kids end up in debt after their years in college. This is avoidable by first having the kid do well in high school so that way they grab the oppertunity to be granted financial aid. It starts with the already state funded high school system which kids today and our future kids will graduate from. The kids deserving of financial aid SHOULD be rewarded, the kids that stumbled in hs should not be rewarded for lackluster grades in high school.

First off you need SCHOOL because you can't even spell. the word and school does a lot of things like giving people the opportunity to play sports make good grades and also have a good career starting from college to retirement to make money for yourself. By the way how did you even post this A computer, A tablet, A phone? How do you think those were made from 5 year old or 15 year old no a educated man who went through school and college and got a job and you telling me they should be nuked! Well lets see your idea No school mainly and that would mean no phones no tech-knowledgeably and no lifes all i haft to say is good plan.

In my communications classes I have repeatedly debated the topic of paying college football players because they are unable to work. Due to how much time is spent in the off season as well at in season. I am a college football player myself and find it hard to support my personal expense. Toiletries, clothes, food other than the dining and even a night out once and a while. Having school paid is indeed a big burden off my shoulders but school alone is not the financial issue of any college student. Theres also the fact that university's make so much money off the athletes that a portion of should go to the players. After all they are the one's people come to see. College coaches make allot of money, just half their salary without incentives would be more than enough to help out the players.


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

In a Democratic Society, Felons Should Maintain Voting Rights

In a democratic society, felons should not be permanently deprived of their right to vote. The concept of felonies and their implications have evolved over time, with modern democracies focusing on the rehabilitation of criminals and their reintegration into society. The severity of different crimes makes it impossible to implement a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. The goal of punishment in democracies is correction and rehabilitation, and the ultimate aim is to reintegrate rehabilitated individuals into society. The right to vote is a fundamental aspect of full integration into a democratic society, and it should be an incentive for completing rehabilitation when possible.

In the United States, all 50 states and the District of Columbia allow felons to vote to some degree, either through automatic restoration, conditional restoration, or through a pardon. The varying degrees of punishment for different felonies demonstrate that society recognizes the need for a nuanced approach to criminal justice. For instance, the punishment for murder, espionage, treason, and other serious felonies may include permanent disenfranchisement, while lesser offenses like possession of small amounts of marijuana may result in temporary loss of voting rights.

The argument that allowing felons to vote would lead to chaos and despair is not supported by the experience of the United States, where the right to vote is not universally revoked for all felons. The severity of the crime should determine the extent of the punishment, and disenfranchisement should be reserved for the most serious offenses. The idea that a democratic society should not be made up of people who have committed crimes is flawed, as it ignores the rehabilitative nature of democratic criminal justice systems.

The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama has argued that a felon may apply to regain their right to vote after serving their sentence and paying all fines and restitution. This system ensures that only those criminals who have fulfilled their obligations to their victims and have sufficient civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can participate in the electoral process. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has made efforts to reintegrate into society is unjust and contradicts the principles of the correctional system and democracy.

The argument that one rights violation justifies another is flawed, as it ignores the rehabilitative nature of punishment in democratic societies. The deprivation of rights should be employed as a means of rehabilitation, and once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed, it should be recognized as such. The logical consequence of laws already in place in

"i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free. " Ok, let's be fair here. I meant nothing negative when I questioned the phrase my opponent used. I also don't think I would've been the only one who assumed that. If I offended any voters, I apologize. However, I was simply asking my opponent if it was intended to be racial. So, I don't think it's necessary to dock conduct points from me. "it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one? " No, I don't think that one hundred percent of people that are denied guns will get one, but when you think about it, it's much closer to one hundred than zero. Even if a law abiding citizen was denied a gun, he or she would be outraged. Now make that proportional to a criminal. The criminal will clearly go to the black market. I don't know why my opponent is denying this. It's common sense. "and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun. " This is true, but it isn't directly related to what my opponent was talking about in that particular paragraph. Also, if someone without a gun gets into trouble, they will most likely lose to the person with a gun. "most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record" My opponent clearly has good intentions, but he's missing the point that you can't use the law to stop criminals. Rather, it doesn't work. Criminals that intend people will do it unless they are stopped by citizens or law enforcement. This is why we should have armed police officers in every school. After the Aurora movie theatre shooting, a law passed in a Colorado to have armed police officers in every movie theatre in the state. Also, regarding my opponent's argument above, background checks would be a major inconvenience to law abiding citizens. . http://www.cnn.com... "there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed. " I doubt it's very recent. School has been out for about two months in most states. Secondly, please provide a source for this because I never saw this on the news. "the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed. " The case is hardly closed. I have one or two arguments that I have made continuously throughout the debate. The reason for this is that my opponent doesn't seem to understand my logic. Pro has used the same arguments excessively as well. "con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave. " See what I mean? Pro used this in rounds two and three. I have already argued against this exact argument in round two. "and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post. .. . harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas. .. it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that. " I apologize to my opponent. For he did give certain studies. What I meant to say is that these studies are very generalized.

The Contender has many flaws in his argument. Firstly, "Harlan" says "I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear." This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases. The other half of his point tells us that he would like to see more "education" rather "than fear". I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose? A famous gangster and killer called Al Capone once said "I have spent the best of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." Yes. Thats the word of the most feared gang leader in Chicago. As you can see, criminals don't see how they are wrong, and they won't see how they are wrong through "education". Men like Al Capone think like that. There is no way of escaping that fact. Secondly, "Harlan" doesn't get the point of a death sentence. Here are his words: "Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs." So what "Harlan" is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to "kill more people in order to get organs". Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment. The organ donation is just a way of a 'repayment' of the people they've killed etc. And also, only healthy organs will be chosen (I would also like to add that healthy blood can also be donated). And as "Harlan" said:" I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized." This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person. Why doesn't "Harlan" feel sorry for those who were killed? Why, "Harlan"? Thirdly, "Harlan" says: "The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one." This proves that "Harlan" does not understand the point. I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues. And as "Harlan" says: "Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution." Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe. And also, "Harlan" still doesn't get the point. The death sentence is a fair punishment for a an "attrocious" crime. "Harlan" is relating the death sentence as a way of getting rid of people. That's not my point! And even more important, isn't a "mental institution" just another phrase for "jail"? They do have rehabilitation places in prisons you know. And lastly, "Harlan" says: "There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary." This proves again that "Harlan" does not understand. We are not trying to get rid of people. We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood. We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population. We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done. And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in "Harlan's" argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in "Harlan's" argument.

I will not have time to post a full round, seeing as I had school and then when I got home my Internet wasn't working, leaving me with only thirty minutes. opponents arguments: "Such a blanket punishment is decidedly unfair, because it punishes the lightest offenders as strictly as the highest ones. Since punishment should be fair (i.e. it should fit the crime), these registries should be discontinued." I agree with you, it is unfair that sexual offender is such a blanket term, but registries should not be discontinued. If you pee in public, you risk being caught and labeled as a sexual offender. Well, use your brain and DONT do pee in public. There are gas stations, parks, restaurants, etc. that someone could stop at and use the bathroom. There is no need to go in public. "Sex offenders shy away from seeking therapist help, because they fear being revealed and put on the list permanently." They may shy away from seeking therapist help, but if they (or the family) knows what's best, they will seek help, no matter what. And if they are sexual offenders, they need to be put on the list anyways to warn the surrounding area. "Rehabilitation builds the future; punishment gets stuck in the past and neglects today and tomorrow." punishment and rehabilitation should go hand in hand. They should put a sex offender on the list until they have been rehabilitated, and then they can be taken off the list. I know this is not the case, so they should be punished. Punishment will show them what happens when they do something like that. would you rather punish the person that hurt the child or punish the child? because not punishing the offender is the same thing as punishing the child. That is not fair that the child went through the pain. "Such dehumanization is the cause of much social evil: racism flourished because blacks were dehumanized; Nazism grew through the dehumanization of Jews. I ask the reader to affirm that all humans are equal, that offenders are human and deserve our concern... that, in the words of Martin Luther King, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." so you are comparing people who hurt other people to Jews and blacks? Sex offenders deserve this, The Jews and blacks didn't. Gossip is not all the time true, so if we don't have a registry, who will know what is true and what is a lie? my arguments: sorry its not alot, again, I didn't have the time. 1) sex offender registries may stop future sex offenders from committing their crime. They will not want to be put on the list, so they will simply seek help. 2) you cant just simply stop registries. There would be to many parents who would have a problem and complain. And what would you tell them the reason that you stopped them was? Because it hurt the sex offenders feelings? Boo Hoo. There are kids out there who will never get there virginity or trust in other people back because of what these sick people did. The websites will be posted in the comments section, I am really pushing it for time right now. Thanks. And just answer this: If a sex offender were living by you, would you want to know?

"do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished?" Define crime, because I am almost certain our definitions are not the same. "would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check?" No I would not. For the government (a small group compared to the general public) to control the populace would cause our government to be a type of oligarchy. In a way the people keep themselves in check by making local laws and by keeping a sense of justice in a community. An anarchist community survives in a similar way by the will of the people to live in a just community. Because of this, I do not believe it is necessary to keep the people in check, and if I do not believe it is needed, then by proxy I do not believe it is their job. On a different note, the people do not really hold enough power to have a need to be kept in check. They vote, but through the dispersal of abilities the individual loses most destructive power, unlike government officials who have been given extreme amounts of harmful capabilities. With the amount of power they have and the amount of officials, they have a stronger power with more of a need to be kept "in check". I am realizing, now that I myself have used the term "in check", that it is a term mildly depending on definition. My apologies for not realizing it on my part. "it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the verdict, not the judge, correct?" Yes it is the jury. They make the final decision. I have nothing more to say to that. "can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust?" Alright. First I have to wonder if we are only talking about laws, or if we are talking about precepts as well. For instance there is the precept that income tax is required of a person, though no where in any book of law is it written that we must pay income tax. I invite you to look for yourself if you do not believe me. This is a precept though, but you can still be put in prison just as easily for it. There's wiretapping which leads into "thought crime". That's an interesting one. President Bush was the first to really push this topic. In short, if they suspect you may be thinking of committing a crime, then they can charge you. There's one law about to be passed here in Oklahoma that states that if a minor dies from alcohol abuse on your property, you are then charged with life in prison under the assumption that you are guilty of murder until you can prove yourself innocent. Is it to be believed that you are now guilty until proven innocent? I hardly think that seems accurate. One other question to get this straight, do you want laws affecting the individual, or laws affecting a group, federal laws, or state laws? My main point of confusion goes back to my original question of, do you want precepts, or do you want legitimate laws. If you could please clarify this, then I would be more than happy to respond with an appropriate answer. "are the government not made up of the american people?" Your last question strikes me as being a bit open ended, but I will do my best to explain my answer. Though our government, in principle, is designed to be controlled by the people, it isn't quite so today. Referring back to my statement on how corporations and lobbyists are considered as one person. This removes the individual right of the people making up the corporation. Also take a look at campaign finance reform. An individual can only give a certain amount of money to a candidate while a corporation can give far more. So the corporation has more power than the individual. Therefor I would almost say that the government is made up of corporations and groups, which are made of people. Though these are made up of the people, it is impossible for the individual to be entirely represented, just as it is impossible to represent every citizen simply because of the ration between citizens and reps. So, in a way, the government is made up of the people, but in another way it is not. Things in the government have been done without the people's knowledge as well, so the government currently is not what the people necessarily intended, so because of that alone the government isn't made up purely of the people's ideas. I apologize for rambling, but I believe it was all relevant. I'm almost sure my answers will not satisfy you. I wrote them too quickly and didn't have a chance to explain them as thoroughly as I'd like for lack of time. I'm very sorry for that.

Their is a difference between being winning and being right, as so many debates on this website can tell us. This is also why I am not talking about me winning rather the morality of the votes (use of ought). 1. there are multiple opponents, not addressed this. We are debating on the morality of the decisions and because they have not conformed to the conduct of rightness, making the fair and right decision. he should have received no votes. 2. Look to intro Extend all points from PRO

1. Treating selective offenders for pedophilic acts instead of incarcerating them in all instances allows more offenders the opportunity to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 2. Giving pedophiles a greater opportunity to reduce or prevent their behavior decreases the likelihood of re-offending. 3. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be sent to involuntary civil commitment hospitals rather than being incarcerated. 4. Civil commitment hospitals can provide incessant treatment to pedophiles while simultaneously keeping them out of society where they can potentially harm more victims. 5. If all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated, there is potential for devastating impacts on the correctional system. 6. A rise in the prison population causes an increase in costs, resources to become limited, and less treatment and prevention programs for those incarcerated. 7. Confinement hospitals can also prevent violent attacks toward pedophiles, which can occur both inside and outside of prison. 8. It is true that incarceration sends a clear message of punishment to those convicted of a crime. 9. Other negative consequences of choosing to treat and not incarcerate all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are acceptable, such as evading a degree of punishment or causing emotional distraught to victims and their families. 10. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Other countries have a different set of laws than America does. I live in America, I don't know about you. But the point in this is that we have an established set of laws, and if you break them, they suffer the consequences. And with the economy as it is, we can't afford to give prisoners free jobs that innocent Americans could be paid for, nor support them for their entire lives living.

I do not think that the death sentence should continue in the future. The second you realize you've executed an innocent person your mindset may turn from laying in your backyard with an utmost serene mood to realizing you just murdered an innocent person. The criminals also need time to reflect and change their ways, I'm not saying I'm a fan of criminals (in fact criminals irk me a lot) but to not get time to reflect is bizzare. Our system doesn't even give people a chance. What eccentric penalty are we going to do next blow criminals up with dynamite.

The words discrimination and fair describing the same thing, is contradictory. And the right to not be dead and the right to decent living conditions (witch capitalism floats so it really doesn't matter). The main point is you're devaluing the rights of man for all time for a temporary shock to the population. It's simply not worth it. We need to punish these people yes remove them from power yes but wasting life and ruining our future is not equitable to the gain.

Very well, thank you for accepting. Onto the point then. There are countless cases where people mistakenly blame innocent individuals for actions they did not commit. For example, if a rape lawsuit is publicly charged against a man who has not committed the rape, no matter what the court rules, his life is destroyed. These people have lost their friends and families for the prejudice people have. This sometimes even leads to the individual committing suicide. Here's an article about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now, this is a bit odd to take up in a debate about our past actions. But hear me out. The people around the individual under charge have no way of actually knowing if he committed the crime or not. So they play it safe and presume he's guilty. For them, he's damaged goods. They value the man according to his past actions. And this is the matter with most cases, as you can rarely be sure that the accusations made against a certain individual are justified. Suppose a new girl has arrived at your school. Your friend tells you she was kicked out of her old school for "violent behavior". You hear the same story from multiple people. And you start to presume they're right. You start judge the girl even though you've never even talked. Whereas in reality, the girl could've switched schools because of teasing, and the teasers made sure she's not gonna like it in her new school either. Where is the justification of prejudice in cases like these? Now, what about an old man who has committed a crime in his 20s. Imagine that he was sentenced to a lifetime of imprisonment from, say, a murder. However, during this time in the prison, he reflects upon himself and his past actions. He realizes his wrongdoing and finds wisdom. Now, he would rather die himself than harm another person, so he is no longer any kind of threat to society. The prison warden acknowledges this, but even though the old man pleas for mercy, he cannot be released due to the court ruling 50+ years ago. What justification is there for society to keep the harmless man in prison for his past actions? Why does our past prevent us from moving forward? I will now let Con have her opening argument.


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

In a democratic nation, individuals who have served their sentences for felonies should have their voting rights reinstated.

NEGATIVE I refute: In a democratic nation, individuals who have served their sentences for felonies should have their voting rights reinstated. To clarify the argument, let's define some key terms: (1) Democracy: a system of government where the power is held by the people, exercised directly or through elected representatives (2) Felon: an individual convicted of a serious crime punishable by more than one year in prison

Observations on the argument: (1) The United States, as a democracy, should not automatically restore voting rights to felons after their sentences, as this contradicts the essence of justice and fairness. (2) The argument focuses on "ex-felons," distinguishing them from "felons" who are currently serving their sentences. The United Nations defines ex-felons as individuals who have completed their sentences.

Values: Fairness and Justice
Value Criterion: Maximization of Consistency and Equality

The Negative values fairness and justice. Fairness is essential in a democratic society, ensuring that punishment is just and consistent. The maximization of consistency and equality will be the guiding principle to demonstrate the fairness of the current system.

In this debate, I will present arguments that support the current system of not automatically restoring voting rights to ex-felons:

(1) Retribution: Retribution involves administering punishment that is deserved and proportional to the crime. When a person commits a felony, they violate the rights of others and treat them as less than human. The government must punish the criminal without being cruel or unusual. Revoking voting rights is a just punishment that respects the rights of the victim and society. (2) Legal Consistency: Incarcerated individuals are removed from society for the safety of others and as a form of punishment. They lose various rights, including social, occupational, and parental rights. Why should political rights, such as voting, be an exception? Upholding legal consistency ensures fairness in the treatment of prisoners. (3) Equality: By automatically restoring voting rights to ex-felons, we would create a double standard. This would give ex-felons equal or even superior rights to law-abiding citizens. This is unjust and contradicts the principles of equality and fairness in a democratic society.

Thank you, and for these reasons, I refute the argument for automatically restoring voting rights to ex-felons.

Con quoted-"Prisoners who are executed are abominations to society, but the family is not responsible for what they have done so they have a right to bury them. After a human being is executed, whether or not you like it, they were someone so they should be able to get a proper burial." Argument-I never said the family is responsible for those criminals, but who said that they should be buried and why it is important. It is just a ritual which is created by the society and men. FACT- Burial is very bad and has many demerits- 1- The embalming process is toxic. 2 -Many materials go into a process. 3- Memorial parks use a lot of space and resources. 4- Funeral are very expensive. http://www.techinsider.io... So you realize that it is better to eat them and not to bury them and they were just criminals who SHOULDN'T be given a proper burial( burial has many demerits). Con quoted -"If he is your father, and he claims his innocence and then he is eaten how would you feel then? He could be wrongly convicted"- Argument- You are talking about a situation which is 1 in 100 and GENERALLY actual culprits are only given death sentences, but exceptions exist everywhere, can't help. Con quoted- "Eating someone does not do anything, therefore there is absolutely no point in eating them." Argument- Why eating someone doesn't do anything. It is good because- 1- Many people will get a new dish, food and taste to eat, the same way we get by eating an animal. 2- Many people will get food. 3- Anyways men eats every living thing which is able to move so why not criminals. 4- It's better than burying them as I said above. Con quoted- "There is a huge difference between eating another humans flesh and eating an animals. Humans are humans, they walk, talk, and are somehow associated with our society. Animals on the other hand, are needed to provide the proper amount of protein" Argument- 1-Why there is a huge difference in eating a man and eating an animal. So what that men can walk, talk, and are associated to our society. Animals also walk, communicate, and are associated to their animal kingdom. 2-Just because you think that Man is the most superior of species. This is wrong. 3-Who gave you the right to eat animals. Just because some early evil men decided to do so and the society is carrying on the same tradition, It doesn't mean that something is right. 4-Just because we have our brains developed then animals, it doesn't give a right to us to eat them. Con quoted- "As they have proven, eating human flesh is addictive, but most people who go through withdraw from regular meat are going through it because they have a sudden lack of protein. That is the key difference: Human Flesh is totally unneeded l, whereas regular meat eaters go through a lack of protein withdraw" Argument- 1- There are crores of vegetarians in the world who are healthy and not have a lack of proteins. 2- If you think you have a lack of proteins then there are many vegetarian food which are very good in proteins and eating meat is certainly not the only option left. 3- Non vegetarians are on a sudden lack of proteins when they leave non veg food but that is because they were consuming non veg food in the first place. Why? 4- Non vegetarians only eat meat because they crave for its taste and are addicted to eat that and cover this fact by giving the reason of PROTEINS. 5- Veg food rich in proteins- Rice and Wheat, pulses, soy beans, corns, carrot, milk, egg, etc. Con quoted-"Let me ask you this, would you eat human flesh? Your answer is probably No , right? Chickens are not human beings. They can not think for themselves and probably aren't even aware that they exist. Just think about it, you can play the "why" game all you want, but pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time, but even way back when, cannibalism was still frowned upon. It isn't my fault that people are starving in Congo, how is that even relevant?" Argument- 1- Chickens are not humans, cannot think for themselves, and also don't know that they exist but that doesn't mean they are not contributing to the society. They are maintaining the ecological balance for you and me to survive. And anyways WHO gave you the right to eat other living being. source- https://www.reference.com... 2- Yes I agree that pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time but that doesn't make it a RIGHT practice and tradition. does it? ex- Prostitution has also been there since the dawn of time and mankind but then also today it has been banned in many parts of the world. 3- Cannibalism has been frowned upon since ages but that is again created by society and as I said in my previous debate argument, that you grow up believing in what the society teaches you, whether it is right or wrong. 4- It is definitely your fault and fault of every non vegetarian in this world that people around the world are dying because of lack of food. explanation- People demand non veg food, so these animals are deliberately bred and multiplied in huge numbers. Where these animals should have been 100 naturally, now they are 5000 in number. Now in order to feed them and make them healthy so people can consume them, they are given the veg food and water which would have otherwise been given to the humans, and hence people in poor countries are dying because of lack of food. Statistics say that vegetarian food for 20 people = non veg food for 2 people. So, definitely you all non vegetarians are responsible for hunger and deaths in poor countries like Somalia, Congo, etc, because you all are addicted to that taste. aren't you? Please refer these and you will understand my point and explanation completely- Con quoted-"Like I said earlier, there is a big difference between a wild animal and a executed prisoner. A heard of wild Buffalo will kill you in the wild, so by your logic they are useless to society. This is a moral question, we don't eat humans because they are humans, and in a way wouldn't that like be killing them twice? Humans are humans, wild animals are wild" Argument- 1- A heard of wild buffaloes will kill you in the wild because their mind is not as developed as humans but that doesn't mean you should kill and eat them for your food purposes. As I said they are doing their contribution to the environment. And any sane and logical man would not go into the wild without any protection, I believe con! But yes you can kill anyone to save yourself, may be an animal. No, it wouldn't be killing them twice as I said, BURYING them has many disadvantages so just eat them right? Con quoted- "Prisoners are still humans, wild animals are not. Wild animals will try to kill you in an instant, just like a prisoner would. You wouldn't eat a human, but you would eat meat so don't be a hypocrite" Argument- 1- I am just saying either you eat both prisoners and animals or don't eat any of them, that's it. I didn't get why you are calling me a hypocrite. I am pretty clear on my words. 2-And humans eat chicken, goat, cow, fish, camel, who are friendly and very good pets, These animals are not wild and would not kill you in an instant. 3-Humans around the world generally don't consume any wild animals but these innocent pets and animals are there favorite dishes, so you first get the FACTS. Con quoted-" We are the most superior species, we aren't living in the jungle anymore and are far more intelligent than other animals. Can most animals cook and clean or think for themselves? No. Argument- 1- Yes I agree with you, we are the most intelligent species and aren't living in the jungle anymore, but we are definitely NOT the most SUPERIOR because- a) Humans are doing everything (development in every field, growing, increasing their potentials, etc) only for themselves and not for anybody else. They are doing this to satisfy their greed and curiosity and not so that everybody can live at peace. Poor are still dying but other human doesn't give a damn. In animals, all are equal. b) Humans are criminals like murderer, fraud, rapist, robber, thugs, goons, etc., whereas no other specie is. c)Humans are the most GREEDY species on the planet.All other species just use what they need and leave the rest for others but we try to take everything for ourselves. d)Human communities are never at peace. There are wars, caste, discrimination, competition, etc which is not seen in animals and other species e)Human species is the only specie where- A single person is responsible for killing millions. This is not seen in animals. f) Humans living in cities pollute the environment the maximum and very badly because of which global warming is raising habitats are getting destroyed and even animals and tribals are being affected rigorously due to this. So definitely humans ARE NOT the most SUPERIOR species INTELLIGENT of all, YES. - NO ANIMAL is responsible for extincting other animals. It's only we humans. Con is not clear about the facts and framing wrong statements to win. - Eating animals and not eating humans is normal because society has taught us that and we are grown seeing this BUT that DOESN'T NOT make it right or the IDEAL thing. - According to con if every prisoner eater is a killer than - every non-vegetarian is also a killer,.(of animals) -I am just saying that- There is nothing wrong in eating death row prisoners as I have explained in all my points above. I conclude by - -Either you eat both- animals and humans or you don't eat anyone. http://www.bustle.com... http://www.peta.org... Con just has psychological reasons in his arguments but I have given solid ones. Voters, please think something new and don't focus on the tradition path.

it is for the safety of the community, state, and nation that criminal records are used in background checks. If a pedophile goes to jail for raping a kid, does it seem reasonable that if this person has all of the qualifications to be a teacher, that they should be hired as an elementary school teacher? If a drug user goes to jail for using prescription drugs, does it seem at all intelligent to let them have a job in a pharmacy? A person's criminal background should be taken into account when giving them a job.

First what is justice?Justice: http://oxforddictionaries.com... [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the Supreme Court of a country or state. Really it is clear that the focus of it is on treating the criminal as they deserve.Now here is the key difference between retribution and rehabilitation.What is retribution? It is punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act. http://oxforddictionaries.com...What is rehabilitation? It is to restore (someone) to health or normal life by training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Clearly the first concern is the punishment's nature. The nature of punishment in most civilised societies is imprisonment with the only variable to consider being the time for which it should last and this is often determined in the case whereby two barristers must advocate either for or in defence of the guilt of the accused. Here they primarily debate over whether or not the crime was committed. Then if the defence lawyer begins to accept it was committed they then debate over the exact nature of the committed crime to try and get their client as low a sentence as possible. Nowhere here is rehabilitation the issue.Rehabilitation is something that a non-criminal should be worried about BEFORE they do a crime. If this person has not been rehabilitated and then does a crime, a crime is a crime and justice will be served. That is all.

Yes the system made these rights but then logically people adore the things they create no matter how stupid they are (example children). You claim that they are "inalienable" and then if I put you under the gun you will quote them at me but give a person power they will use it vindictivly. Your rules only make sense if you follow them, the idea contractinisum is you do this for gain, you lose the gain by breaking rules but if you label a rule as being linked to personhood you must respect it even when they break faith, your argument could be applied to say that if you disagree with society (over any issue this could be slavery, pedophilia, and other such abominations) if they are tried you can kill um, hello bob ewel.

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?

I accept. Just one thing I'd like to clarify: does this change the judicial system at all, beyond convictions? Are all of the various routes to a "not guilty" vote still present after this stance is implemented?

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

There once was a man who killed a couple of people, went into jail, came out to kill more people, went back in again, and killed more people after coming out. There wouldn't have been so many deaths if a death sentence was introduced. This may seem inhumane, but since when did killing people become humane? In some countries, there is no death sentence, and since there isn't, it should be introduced. First of all, death sentences reduce the number of cold criminals behind bars. They carried out serious offences, now they have to pay the price, it all seems pretty normal. Secondly, the organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them. This is a good way to repay all the lives that the criminal has killed. Thirdly, a death sentence introduced could decrease the number of murders every year. When pre-criminals hear that a death sentence is being introduced, they usually stop. This is a good way to stop serious assault and murder and a way to save lives. Thus the death sentence should be introduced to countries who don't have such a law.

Yes, I stated that if pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating instead of incarcerating them. I stand behind my statement because even if there were more treatment centers they would cost just as much to run, as running a program to treat pedophilia while incarcerated. Convicted pedophiles are in fact isolated from general population when incarcerated, and yes they may have their autonomy and freedom taken away from them as a message of punishment but that"s not as bad as a child suffering the rest of their lives for the actions a pedophile has committed against them. Therefore pedophiles like many others should in fact have many more privileges taken away from them as punishment for them to actually understand they are being punished as much as a child is suffering for the rest of their lives. Removing convicted pedophiles from society is not just beneficial to the children or the victim"s families and the rest of the society, most of all its actually beneficial to the actual convicted pedophile." It protects the convicted pedophile from people of the society such as victim"s, family members and just community members from taking action against the convicted pedophile for just being a convicted pedophile."

In my opponent's attempts to refute my rebuttals, he has still managed to not address parts of my argument; he's seemingly avoiding it by saying what "can" and "can't" happen. Ex: stating I can't change the judicial system, go back in time, and nor can Vick go back to jail. No, Vick can't go back to jail, I don't have a time machine, and nor can I change the system -- but this is very much irrelevant to this debate, which, as I explained thoroughly in my last post, is about what *should* happen to Vick. What can and cannot happen and what *should* happen are two different things, and the resolution quite clearly reads: <"Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season. "> In essence, simply because he can't go back to prison doesn't at all necessarily mean that he shouldn't, which means my opponent hasn't come close to adequately refuting this part of my argument. Addressing what can or cannot happen is attacking an irrelevant argument I never made, which means my opponent is again committing a straw man fallacy. My opponent said this: <"1)the only way this where to be true if you valued a hundred dogs lives over one humans which is popseress"> I'm not sure what he means, as "popseress" is not a word that would be anywhere close to applicable in the context of this debate. In fact, upon a Google search of that word, the first result was actually this debate. My point is that what my opponent is saying in his first point is essentially incomprehensible. However, I'm going to assume he means "preposterous," which seems kinda likely. .. but I'm not sure. But just in case this is true, I'll treat what he said as if it is. Why would it be preposterous? My opponent has merely said that it is, and not supported himself. I don't think it's "preposterous" at all, considering dogs are, indeed, sentient beings. Taking this sentience into account, as well as how many dogs were probably killed, tortured, and injured, it clearly seems as if these crimes would outweigh the moral significance of an individual human being killed; thus, Vick should still be in prison. Furthermore, why 100 dogs? My opponent is just busting out completely arbitrary numbers. However, Vick did, indeed, run a dog fighting ring, which was responsible for the death, torture, and injuries of many, many dogs; police confiscated roughly 70 dogs when they busted Vick, and, keeping in mind that dogs, according to the indictment, "fought to the death, or close to it," and that the "Bad Newz Kennels" operation had been running for several years, it seems very reasonable to think 100 dogs died. I'd even say that 100 is actually low-balling the number of dogs killed by a decent amount. But anyway. .. I just felt like letting everyone know that. My opponent then followed that up with this: <"2)Even if you want to believe that it his, then let the punishment fit the crime. Vick spent 18 monthes in prison and 6 under house arrest. Donte Stallworth who only got 30 days in Jail for killing a pedestrian in a hit and run DUI. "> I think this is a rather weak analogy, because it assumes that the punishment received by Stallworth is just, which I don't think it is at all. 30 days in jail for killing a person while driving under the influence is absolutely ludicrous. Further, my opponent's analogy simply has no legal validity -- I'm not really sure why a completely different case lacking in similarity should set a legal precedent. Keeping in mind that precedent, in law, means the following: <". .. a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. "> (1) Quite frankly, the facts and issues of this case aren't similar at all; the only real thing they have in common is that sentient beings lost their lives, and that isn't anywhere close to enough to establish a valid legal precedent; if this were the case, then the punishment for killing a bird would be the same as it is for killing a human. My opponent then defends his first contention -- he says this: <"In six season in the NFL, Micheal Vick proved is validity as a pro quaterback. He has played at the highest league at the best level. Even if Vick is not allowed back into the NFL (because he gets suspended) then why not go somewhere else and still get paid? "> Yes, he can go elsewhere, but this is just utterly irrelevant, considering, again, this debate is about what *should* be occurring. However, to assuage my opponent, I'll go along with this: Why not? Because he blew it. Vick had his chance to sustain a career in football, but, unfortunately for him, he decided to engaged in very serious, illegal, idiotic, and disturbing acts, so it's too bad for him -- as I said, he blew it. Further, despite the fact that Vick *can* play in another league, just because one *can* do something doesn't mean they should -- for example, I can go stick a knife through my neighbors chest. But does that mean I *should* commit such a psychopathic act? Not at all; however, my opponent's logic would support it. His chances were there, but he threw them away. Why should he get another? Because he's good at football? The absurdity inherent in such an idea is astounding -- my first point would go along the lines of my last one: just because Vick *can* play football at a high level doesn't at all mean he should. Like I was saying, I can; therefore, I should, is a fallacious argument -- a vast array of things can be done. Whoever is in control of bombing stuff can decide to bomb Sweden -- but does that mean they should? Not at all; however, my opponent's logic support's that. Further, he's good; therefore, he should, is fallacious, too. Plenty of people are good at killing. Does this mean they should become serial killers? By that logic, it does. My second point would be that Vick dug himself into this hole; now it's time to climb out. Vick committed these crimes, and put himself in debt; now it's time to get his way out of it. Why should we put him back on easy street by letting him earn plentiful amounts of money by playing football? This would only be avoiding the consequences of his actions. My opponent's second contention with him quoting people from ESPN, but that's hardly an argument. Further, I'd like to call ad authoritarium, or, in other words, an appeal to authority. Just because ESPN thinks people want to see Vick doesn't at all mean that's the case. Also, why in the world would someone watch a sporting event to cheer against an individual player. .. ? When one dislikes another, it's simple human nature to not want to have anything to do with them. So, in essence, my opponent's contention goes against our nature as human beings. My opponent says the league would be exposed with Vick; therefore, they'll benefit -- but, to quote myself: <"a player whose reputation is largely negative, and the means through which this negativity were achieved, make it so that the player isn't at all marketable, and is perhaps a burden to the name of the league. In a way, to market such a player would be slandering the name of their own football league. "> So clearly, just because the league is exposed doesn't mean they'll benefit; it's entirely possible that having a negatively recognized figure "expose" them would burden them, or, as I said "slander their name. " Just because people might learn about the league a little doesn't necessarily mean the league will benefit, especially in this context. My opponent didn't really address my initial refutation to his "they'll be exposed; therefore, they'll benefit" I posted in the last round, so please, extend that argument. To conclude, I've negated both relevant and irrelevant arguments used by my opponent. So please, vote con. (1) = . http://en.wikipedia.org...